This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFA: Deprecate C++ options
- To: George Gargey <tmwg-gcc at inxservices dot com>
- Subject: Re: RFA: Deprecate C++ options
- From: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>
- Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 14:15:11 +0200 (CEST)
- cc: <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, George Gargey wrote:
> Unfortunately, I didn't follow your instructions precisely, so perhaps
> this doesn't count. I used the last snapshot tarball (20010910) instead of
> direct from CVS.
> Compiled one of the in-house C++ systems from scratch using 3.0.1 and
> the snapshot last night:
> gcc-3.0.1:
> 1853.43s user 45.26s system 50% cpu 1:02:46:71 total
> gcc-3.0.1.1 [3.0.2 20010910 (prerelease)]:
> 1849.85s user 44.17s system 50% cpu 1:02:37:50 total
> No check for difference in code generation, of course, just compile
> times.
This is fine, as basically the situation was like that for (some) C++
code:
GCC 3.0: slow code generation slow code generated
GCC 3.0.1: faster code generation somewhat slower code generated
GCC 3.0.2: faster code generation faster code generated
So, when comparing 3.0.1 with 3.0.2(prerelease), you should see about
the some compilation time, but better performance for your binaries.
GCC 3.0.2 should be strictly better than 3.0 in *both* areas.
Gerald
--
Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/~pfeifer/