From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21764 invoked by alias); 20 Jan 2004 15:16:07 -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 21757 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2004 15:16:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Jan 2004 15:16:06 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.30 #1 (Debian)) id 1Aixbp-0000Qp-U7 for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 10:16:05 -0500 Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:16:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal Message-ID: <20040120151605.GC1348@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org References: <1074600455.28477.117.camel@pc> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01505.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:42:14PM +0100, Karel Gardas wrote: > [2]: COMO 4.3.3 + GCC 3.3.2 backend, -O0 optimize option (note that GCC > is used as an ``assembler'' here, so the time to compile produced C > code is not counted (i.e. como is ``just'' C++ to C compiler) You don't get to ignore that time. C++ -> asm is much more complex than C++ -> C, so these numbers are meaningless. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer