From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 05:17:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 05:17:21 -0400 Received: from pD951F7B2.dip.t-dialin.net ([217.81.247.178]:58884 "EHLO emma1.emma.line.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 05:17:00 -0400 Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 11:16:57 +0200 From: Matthias Andree To: "Alexander V. Bilichenko" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: GCC3.0 Produce REALLY slower code! Message-ID: <20010625111657.C13348@emma1.emma.line.org> Mail-Followup-To: "Alexander V. Bilichenko" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <001301c0fcff$47c05160$d55355c2@microsoft> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <001301c0fcff$47c05160$d55355c2@microsoft> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.19i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Alexander V. Bilichenko wrote: > Hello All! > Some tests that I have recently check out. > kernel compiled with 3.0 (2.4.5) function call: 1000000 iteration. 3% slower > than 2.95. > test example - hash table add/remove - 4% slower (compiled both > with -O2 -march=i686). > Why have this version been released? Because it comes with various other improvements, among them better error detection, better C++ support, integrated GCJ (but regretfully still without Ada 95), to name a few reasons. 3% to 4% loss in a first release of a new major release is not a big deal, although I found similar results on leafnode's texpire. However, 3% do not warrant me spending my time complaining. Maybe some optimization is missing, maybe other operations than the ones you checked are faster. So there. You might run an entire benchmark suite and report back, tough. :-)