This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: GCC 3.3 compile speed regression - AN ANSWER

From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds at transmeta dot com>
Cc: tm_gccmail at mail dot kloo dot net, Matt Austern <austern at apple dot com>,jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 11:48:46 -0500
Subject: Re: GCC 3.3 compile speed regression - AN ANSWER
References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0302112309060.27558-100000@mail.kloo.net> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0302120827210.5230-100000@home.transmeta.com>

On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 08:35:56AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> And I've pointed out several times that the generated code quality doesn't 
> seem to be improving, and I've not gotten any pushback on that either. I 
> bet most gcc people know this in their hearts.

Actually, we've got a lot of numbers that go the other way - someone
earlier quoted a 10% improvement across SPEC, and it's not isolated to
benchmarks.  When people point the finger at particular code that gets
worse, it seems to usually get fixed.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Follow-Ups:
- Re: GCC 3.3 compile speed regression - AN ANSWER
  - From: Karel Gardas

References:
- Re: GCC 3.3 compile speed regression - AN ANSWER
  - From: tm_gccmail
- Re: GCC 3.3 compile speed regression - AN ANSWER
  - From: Linus Torvalds

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]