On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 02:39:12PM +0200, Krzysztof Halasa wrote: > Compilation speed? Don't know, using 3 (4?) years old Athlon 2000 > it's not a problem unless I need full build 30 times a day. > > But people on 266 MHz ARM5 may notice.
Hmm, an a 400Mhz PXA 255 I found using gcc 3.x meant I could use xscale rather than older optimizations, and the resulting kernel certainly felt much faster (I never did actually meassure if it was faster or not). Using gcc 2.95 requried changing the cpu optimization lines in the kernel. Of course this was in a kernel patched with the pxa arm patches so it isn't quite the same as the mainline kernel. I certainly won't consider using gcc 2.95 on an arm anymore (although perhaps on older arm models it does make sense). I have no idea if it took longer to compile with gcc 3.x, but the result seemed better to me. To me performance of the resulting kernel is more important than performance compiling the kernel. Of course if you leave the choice as 2.95 and above rather than 3.2 and above, people can pick whatever they want based on their needs. Len Sorensen - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
