Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 15:31:41 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy <peter.jeremy@alcatel.com.au> To: Donn Miller <dmmiller@cvzoom.net> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: panic during make depend Message-ID: <00Mar16.153142est.115387@border.alcanet.com.au> In-Reply-To: <38D05C92.4F85C798@cvzoom.net>; from dmmiller@cvzoom.net on Thu, Mar 16, 2000 at 03:04:00PM %2B1100 References: <4.3.2.20000315172056.00bf7740@mixcom.com> <38D05C92.4F85C798@cvzoom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2000-Mar-16 15:04:00 +1100, Donn Miller <dmmiller@cvzoom.net> wrote: >Basically, gcc is a very good compiler. But, it isn't exactly the >best compiler to use for optimization. Someone told me that Sun's and >DEC's compilers, for example, blow away gcc in terms of speed. But, >they aren't portable. I think it's very dependent on the target architecture and how popular that architecture is. Traditionally, the M68K and SPARC families were the most popular, and gcc generated the best (or equal best) code on them. The i386 is now a more popular family but, at the high end, optimisation is restricted by the difficulty of obtaining accurate documentation. The Alpha is a very difficult processor to generate good code for (and I suspect the IA64 will be worse). DEC (and now Compaq) have put a lot of effort into tweaking their compiler - I don't believe anything like the same amount of effort has been expended on the gcc backend (and I wouldn't expect it). Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?00Mar16.153142est.115387>