From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13535 invoked by alias); 19 Jan 2004 03:47:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 13528 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2004 03:47:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imf16aec.mail.bellsouth.net) (205.152.59.64) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Jan 2004 03:47:14 -0000 Received: from bobbyjunior ([68.221.194.84]) by imf16aec.mail.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.05 201-253-122-130-105-20030824) with ESMTP id <20040119034713.VNQY1899.imf16aec.mail.bellsouth.net@bobbyjunior>; Sun, 18 Jan 2004 22:47:13 -0500 From: "Robert McNulty Junior" To: "'Marc Espie'" , Subject: RE: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 03:47:00 -0000 Message-ID: <000201c3de3e$f16c4890$6501a8c0@bobbyjunior> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <20040119034216.0593F48A4@quatramaran.ens.fr> X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01235.txt.bz2 Only on Faster Machines. If you only build c and c++, then it seems fast on a lower 1.2 celeron. If you use a Sparc or other CPU, where speeds are greater than 3 GB, then sure, it seams fast. But it ain't. Only speedup is processor power. Robert -----Original Message----- From: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Marc Espie Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 9:42 PM To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal In fact, I finally got around to building gcc-head, and comparing it to gcc 3.3.2. To say that the results are disappointing would be an understatement: Time for a kernel compile, gcc 3.3.2: 276.63s real 193.01s user 26.86s system with gcc-head: 341.31s real 213.25s user 27.87s system Exact same options, basically -O2. Now, tell me again that GCC is getting faster...