Dagobert Michelsen <[email protected]> writes: > Hi Peter, > > I'm adding James to the post as he has experience in > compiler optimization and used it for some of his packages > extensively. > > Am 13.05.2009 um 15:04 schrieb Peter FELECAN: > >> Dagobert Michelsen <[email protected]> writes: >> >>>>> You have to install it :-) Apart from that the code generation for >>>>> Sparc of gcc is very bad, that's why I also installed gccfss if >>>>> the project absolutely demands gcc, but this further compilcates >>>>> compilation. >>>> >>>> Having to install it is not an issue IMHO. >>>> >>>> When you say "very bad" what do you mean? >>> >>> The optimized is inferior to the one of SOS. I remember reading a >>> comparison of the two, but I can't find it at >>> <http://cooltools.sunsource.net/gcc/> >>> >> >> Didn't find it either. Well, my question was motivated to really >> qualify >> the differences, lets say on a scale of 1 to 100, how do we position >> the >> 2 compilers for SPARC generated code. Saying "very bad" is relative >> but >> to what and in what measure? >> >> Finally, is that so important for the kind of packages that we >> provide? >> For 1%, 10% or 66%... > > Maybe James or some other maintainer has real, first-hand performance > data?
Let James wisdom shine upon us! -- Peter FELECAN mailto:[email protected] _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
