Re: support of older compilers

[Ioan Ionita <opslynx@gmail.com>]

Nobody mentioned that fact that newer versions of gcc, albeit slower
at compiling, do tend to generate binaries that have faster execution

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 19:36:26 +0000, Ian Hastie <ianh@iahastie.clara.net> wrote:
> On Thursday 04 Nov 2004 17:04, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 10:50:38 CST, Adam Heath said:
> > > I didn't deny the speed difference of older and newer compilers.
> > >
> > > But why is this an issue when compiling a kernel?  How often do you
> > > compile your kernel?
> >
> > If you're working on older hardware (note the number of people on this
> > list still using 500mz Pentium3 and similar), and a kernel developer, the
> > difference between 2 hours to build a kernel and 4 hours to build a
> > kernel matters quite a bit.
> 
> How often is it necessary to do a full rebuild of the kernel?  If the
> dependencies in the make system work properly then only the amended parts
> should be recompiled.  That'd be a much bigger time saving than just using an
> older compiler.
> 
> --
> Ian.
> 
> EOM
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>