From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25450 invoked by alias); 1 Mar 2004 04:05:01 -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 25442 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2004 04:05:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cvs.openbsd.org) (199.185.137.3) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 Mar 2004 04:05:00 -0000 Received: from cvs.openbsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cvs.openbsd.org (8.12.11/8.12.1) with ESMTP id i2145YgI006299; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 21:05:34 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <200403010405.i2145YgI006299@cvs.openbsd.org> To: Eric Christopher cc: Zack Weinberg , Andrew Pinski , tech@openbsd.org, Marc Espie , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org List" Subject: Re: gcc and compiling speed In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 29 Feb 2004 20:00:40 PST." <1078113640.4272.19.camel@dzur.sfbay.redhat.com> Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 04:05:00 -0000 From: Theo de Raadt X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00022.txt.bz2 > Sure, as long as you do timing tests and put it in bugzilla when you do > it. If you can narrow down classes of slow testcases then you'll be > helping as opposed to adding to the noise which you are currently doing. Eric, On the box where you are right now, what is the speed difference between gcc2 compiling your kernel, versus gcc3 compiling your kernel. Since I can bet gcc3 is slower for you, have you submitted detailed test results for that? Frankly, as consumers of your compiler we don't have a clue how to start submitting results like you are suggesting we do. Clearly it is not about test cases when we can't find anything faster! We just see one point of analysis: This new compiler is even more of a slug than the previous one. But if you want, keep on ignoring what we point out... I'm sure Redhat keeps buying you faster machines...