This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Various GCC compared (2.95.3 - 3.5-20040523)
On: Fri, 28 May 2004 20:52:51 +0200,
Laurent GUERBY <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-05-28 at 18:28, Rene Rebe wrote:
> > Now the gnupg results are not more reasonable and place recent gcc
> > versions into a better light.
> You need to configure GCC 3.5-exp with --disable-checking otherwise
> build time are not "fair" vs releases because the exp version enable
> some compiler internal checks by default. I believe you should
> also report the date at which you took the sources from CVS
> for 3.5-exp on your graph.
I know. This is why I wrote in my initial mail that I have done
this. Is there a runtime check so I can verify the resulting binary
really does not include checking?
> > I'll now add more tests and run them on the athlon-xp ...
> Then having absolute times would be useful to compare between
> platforms :)
Hm - I think (/ thought) relative number are better since I know my
800Mhz G3 is far slower than the 2.5Ghz Athlon-XP in the server room
... Not even to mention my 270Mhz UltraSPARC on the desk ... And
taking the wide range of compile times (gzip vs. linux26) into account
the diagrams would be harder to read.
Why do you think absolute numbers are interesting?
- ROCK Linux stable release maintainer
René Rebe - Europe/Germany/Berlin