From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28859 invoked by alias); 20 Jan 2004 15:21:05 -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 28851 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2004 15:21:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thinkpad.wg-ro-gar1.inext.cz) (212.111.6.80) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Jan 2004 15:21:04 -0000 Received: from karel (helo=localhost) by thinkpad.wg-ro-gar1.inext.cz with local-esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Aixh2-0000bK-00; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:21:28 +0100 Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:21:00 -0000 From: Karel Gardas X-X-Sender: karel@thinkpad.wg-ro-gar1.inext.cz To: Daniel Jacobowitz cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal In-Reply-To: <20040120151605.GC1348@nevyn.them.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01508.txt.bz2 On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > 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. I don't think so, but if you care, I can do comparison of: como433+gcc332+as2.14 x gcc340+as2.14. Cheers, Karel -- Karel Gardas kgardas@objectsecurity.com ObjectSecurity Ltd. http://www.objectsecurity.com