Aaron Tiensivu wrote:
>Rerun the 2.4.0 with kgcc to be fair. :)
John Fremlin wrote:
>Two points: (1) gcc 2.95 makes slightly slower code than egcs-1.1
>(according to benchmarks on gcc.gnu.org) so compile 2.4 kernel with
>egcs for a fairer comparison. (2) The new VM was a performance
Ok, several people have said that kgcc makes a slightly
better (faster) kernel than gcc. Here are some more results.
1 2 3 ave.
453 456 455 454.7 make bzImage for 2.4.0t12p7 running 2.4.0t12p7kgcc
compare this to my previous test using test12-pre7 compiled with gcc:
460 458 454 457.3 make bzImage for 2.4.0t12p7 running 2.4.0t12p7gcc
2.4.0t12p7kgcc is shorthand for 2.4.0-test12-pre7k made with kgcc.
2.4.0t12p7gcc is shorthand for 2.4.0-test12-pre7 made with gcc.
kgcc does indeed make a slightly faster (0.5%) kernel, but I think
we're getting into the pregnant or dimpled chad thing at this point.
To create a kgcc test12-pre7, I modified line 18 and 29 of the top
level Makefile to be =kgcc. Of course, I then restored the Makefile
to original, since I'm not testing how fast gcc vs kgcc compiles a
bunch of code. I modified EXTRAVERSION to be -test12k so I could
double check with uname -r to make sure I booted the correct kernel.
Kgcc made a somewhat larger kernel than gcc. The same .config file
was used for both kernels.
829034 Dec 7 20:46 vmlinuz-2.4.0-test12-pre7
854863 Dec 11 14:12 vmlinuz-2.4.0-test12-pre7k
I have a SMP (dual P-III 733Mhz) machine at work, but it will be
unavailable for testing for a few more days. I suspect that 2.4.0-test12
will do better than 2.2.18 with 2 CPUs. I'll know in a few days.
Building kernels is something we do so frequently and this test is so easy
to reproduce is why I performed it in the first place. I think it may be as
good a test of real performance as some of the more formal benchmarks.
Comments anyone?
Steven
-
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/
