Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 24 Nov 2001 11:02:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 24 Nov 2001 11:02:29 -0500 Received: from Expansa.sns.it ([192.167.206.189]:45069 "EHLO Expansa.sns.it") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 24 Nov 2001 11:02:16 -0500 Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 17:01:55 +0100 (CET) From: Luigi Genoni To: Anton Altaparmakov cc: Daniel Phillips , war , Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk , Subject: Re: Which gcc version? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20011123185333.00afd920@pop.cus.cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 23 Nov 2001, Anton Altaparmakov wrote: > At 18:30 23/11/01, Daniel Phillips wrote: > >On November 23, 2001 02:59 pm, Anton Altaparmakov wrote: > > > At 13:51 23/11/01, war wrote: > > > >You should use gcc-2.95.3. > > > > > > That's not true. gcc-2.96 as provided with RedHat 7.2 is perfectly fine. > > > > > > gcc-3x OTOH is not a good idea at the moment. > > > >Do you have any particular reason for saying that? > > I haven't done any measurements myself but from what I have read, gcc-3.x > produces significantly slower code than gcc-2.96. I know I should try > myself some time... but if that is indeed true that is a very good reason > to stick with gcc-2.96. > I did some serious bench. On all my codes, using eavilly floating point computation, binaries built with gcc 3.0.2 are about 5% slower that the ones built with 2.95.3 on athlon processor with athlon optimizzations. On the other side, on sparclinux, same codes compiled with gcc 3.0.2 are really faster, about 20%, that with 2.95.3 Luigi - 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/