Re: gcc-2.95.3 vs gcc-3.0.4

Simon Kirby
2002-02-25T08:08:06Z

On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 09:22:18PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:

> Larry McVoy wrote:
> >
> > Try 2.72, it's almost twice as fast as 2.95 for builds. For BK, at least,
> > we don't see any benefit from the slower compiler, the code runs the same
> > either way.
> >
>
> Amen.
>
> I want 2.7.2.3 back, but it was the name:value struct initialiser
> bug which killed that off. 2.91.66 isn't much slower than 2.7.x,
> and it's what I use.
>
> "almost twice as fast"? That means that 2.7.2 vs 3.x is getting
> up to a 3x difference. Does anyone know why?

Me too. Everybody says "it's the final code that matters", but a lot of
us would be more productive if the thing would just compile faster. I've
done the same (used 2723 during development/debugging) and it helped
quite a lot.

I remember Borland Turbo Pascal's compiler... Yes, yes, but that thing
compiled insane amounts of code in split seconds on 386 hardware.

Simon-

[ Stormix Technologies Inc. ][ NetNation Communications Inc. ]
[ sim@stormix.com ][ sim@netnation.com ]
[ Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employers. ]