:You really cannot say this -- GCC 3.1 does things 2.95 doesn't.  3.1 has
:a totally rewritten code scheduler.  People can't get Pentium-4 and
:Athlon tbird specific optimizations for free.
:You almost seem to be making a claim on the quality of generated code,
:vs. just the run-time of the compiler.  The two are different.

    I am making no such claim.  I began this investigation when Julian
    forwarded some reports, and his own observations, that softupdates 
    did not seem to have the huge improvement in performance for buildworlds
    in -current verses -stable.  My analysis is about softupdates, the only
    observation I made in regards to GCC3 was that it was taking far longer
    to compile the same source.  I made no statements on GCC3's code
    generation quality vs GCC2.


    However, since you asked, I will say that I am not at all impressed with
    GCC3 vs GCC2.  I've looked at a considerable amount of code with objdump
    between -stable and -current and GCC3 doesn't really seem to improve
    things much at all and in some run-time tests it seems to produce even
    worse code then GCC2 did.... and GCC2 produced pretty bad code.  I see
    no improvement in cpu-intensive applications when I run a GCC2-generated
    binary and a GCC3-generated binary on the same machine, side by side.

                                        Matthew Dillon 
                                        <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to