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 05:33:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 05:33:42 -0400 Received: from nef.ens.fr ([129.199.96.32]:43789 "EHLO nef.ens.fr") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 05:33:28 -0400 Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 11:33:25 +0200 From: Thomas Pornin To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: GCC3.0 Produce REALLY slower code! Message-ID: <20010625113325.A3995@bolet.ens.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In article you write: > All bench i did, it's slower about 3/5% depending on the kind of code. On Alpha machines (ev4 and ev56), it seems actually to be the opposite on integer calculation: gcc-3.0 produces code up to 5% faster than gcc-2.95.2. The result is still 25% behind the Compaq C compiler, though. By the way, the installation procedure is mostly buggy on old Alpha systems (RedHat 5.1 -> binutils 2.9, glibc 2.0.7). I do not mind gcc having some requirements about versions of such other tools, but it could be made a bit more explicit, and the configuration script should also emit some warnings (it detects the versions installed, it just does not bother reporting the potential problem). --Thomas Pornin