From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 26 Jun 2001 03:42:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 26 Jun 2001 03:41:53 -0400 Received: from zeus.kernel.org ([209.10.41.242]:19902 "EHLO zeus.kernel.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 26 Jun 2001 03:41:37 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 09:40:16 +0200 From: Thomas Pornin To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: GCC3.0 Produce REALLY slower code! Message-ID: <20010626094016.A5899@bolet.ens.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <200106260121.f5Q1LuE14141@habitrail.home.fools-errant.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In article <200106260121.f5Q1LuE14141@habitrail.home.fools-errant.com> you write: > Then there's the other question: Why should we test a compiler that > seems to be quite proprietary? Apart from questions of optimization, compiling the same code with two different compilers is a very good way to find bugs, both in the code and in the compilers. Besides, the kernel is, for now, dependent on many gcc features; but it might be worth thinking about writing code a bit more "standard", just in case another free C compiler emerges on some specific arch. Then again, aiming at compiling with several compilers is one way to achieve portability. (yet I do not believe it will happen anyday soon) --Thomas Pornin