Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264683AbTFWAwP (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Jun 2003 20:52:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264692AbTFWAwP (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Jun 2003 20:52:15 -0400 Received: from smtp.bitmover.com ([192.132.92.12]:5292 "EHLO smtp.bitmover.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264683AbTFWAwO (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Jun 2003 20:52:14 -0400 Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 18:05:55 -0700 From: Larry McVoy To: Andrew Morton Cc: Daniel Phillips , acme@conectiva.com.br, cw@f00f.org, torvalds@transmeta.com, geert@linux-m68k.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, perex@suse.cz, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: GCC speed (was [PATCH] Isapnp warning) Message-ID: <20030623010555.GA4302@work.bitmover.com> Mail-Followup-To: Larry McVoy , Andrew Morton , Daniel Phillips , acme@conectiva.com.br, cw@f00f.org, torvalds@transmeta.com, geert@linux-m68k.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, perex@suse.cz, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20030621125111.0bb3dc1c.akpm@digeo.com> <20030622014345.GD10801@conectiva.com.br> <20030621191705.3c1dbb16.akpm@digeo.com> <200306221522.29653.phillips@arcor.de> <20030622103251.158691c3.akpm@digeo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030622103251.158691c3.akpm@digeo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam (whitelisted), SpamAssassin (score=0.3, required 7, AWL) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1826 Lines: 40 If you think 3.[23] are slow, go back and compile with 2.7.2 - it's much faster than the later versions. I used to yank newer versions of gcc off systems and put 2.7.2 on, I think it was close to 2x faster at compilation and made no difference on BK performance. On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:32:51AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > Daniel Phillips wrote: > > > > As for compilation speed, yes, that sucks. I doubt there's any rational > > reason for it, but I also agree with the idea that correctness and binary > > code performance should come first, then the compilation speed issue should > > be addressed. > > No. Compilation inefficiency directly harms programmer efficiency and the > quality and volume of code the programmer produces. These are surely the > most important things by which a toolchain's usefulness should be judged. > > I compile with -O1 all the time and couldn't care the teeniest little bit > about the performance of the generated code - it just doesn't matter. > > I'm happy allowing those thousands of people who do not compile kernels all > the time to shake out any 3.2/3.3 compilation problems. > > > Compilation inefficiency is the most serious thing wrong with gcc. > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/