From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25745 invoked by alias); 21 Apr 2010 18:46:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 25721 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Apr 2010 18:46:37 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mel.act-europe.fr (HELO mel.act-europe.fr) (212.99.106.210) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 18:46:31 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-smtp.eu.adacore.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98735CB021D; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 20:46:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mel.act-europe.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.eu.adacore.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Oj8znnhg1svl; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 20:46:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from adijon-256-1-144-34.w90-13.abo.wanadoo.fr (ADijon-256-1-144-34.w90-13.abo.wanadoo.fr [90.13.31.34]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mel.act-europe.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B119CB01DC; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 20:46:29 +0200 (CEST) From: Eric Botcazou To: Robert Dewar Subject: Re: Some benchmark comparison of gcc4.5 and dragonegg (was dragonegg =?iso-8859-1?q?=09in_FSF?= gcc?) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 19:03:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, "Manuel =?iso-8859-1?q?L=F3pez-Ib=E1=F1ez?=" , Vladimir Makarov , Steven Bosscher , Duncan Sands References: <20100409163655.GA25781@bromo.med.uc.edu> <4BCF439D.4090300@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <4BCF439D.4090300@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <201004212046.47222.ebotcazou@adacore.com> Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-04/txt/msg00483.txt.bz2 > We (here we = the commercial company AdaCore) would be worried if > ANY of our customers were worried, but they are not, they see a > continuous effective improvement in compile speed using the latest > available hardware, and it's not a factor for them. The Ada compiler is a little special here because our internal measures show that GCC 4.x based Ada compilers are faster than GCC 3.x based ones, all other things being equal, at least on x86/Linux. GCC 4.5 hasn't been evaluated yet though. -- Eric Botcazou