On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 04:28:41AM +0000, John Anthony Kazos Jr. wrote:
> What does everyone have against gcc 2.95 on this list? I've been
> compiling kernels successfully (read: not one single (ever) error
> in compilation) with gcc 2.95.2 for more than a year now. What's the
> big deal?
[Fix your mail program to put in carriage returns at 72 columns, please]
I hate it because it compiles much more slowly than 2.72 and for
my purposes, at least, the resulting code is not any faster on
any of the following platforms: x86, SPARC, MIPS, PA-RISC, and Alpha.
I ran a bunch of tests with both on the BitKeeper source base, about
100K lines of code or so, and then ran the regressions as well as some
hand picked tests. No faster. Just compiles slower. Add to that
some distributions BRAINDEAD default of havving colorgcc be the default
compiler (can you say fork perl to fork gcc? Can you say STUPID?), and
you start to understand why the first thing I do is remove all that
garbage and put back a reasonable compiler.
I'm not impressed.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
