Date: Sun, 07 Jul 1996 02:41:06 -0700 From: Amancio Hasty <hasty@rah.star-gate.com> To: grog@lemis.de (Greg Lehey) Cc: hackers@freebsd.org (FreeBSD Hackers) Subject: Re: gcc lies? Message-ID: <199607070941.CAA01347@rah.star-gate.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 07 Jul 1996 10:59:21 %2B0200." <199607070859.KAA15494@allegro.lemis.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hmmm... 5.4 vs 14 seconds -- sounds to me like a good reason to use gcc-1.42. I can see using gcc-1.42 for doing development once you get past the stage of *gross* bugs for the final compilation phase switch over to gcc-2.xxx. Tnks! Amancio >From The Desk Of Greg Lehey : > Amancio Hasty writes: > > > > Dumb question , is gcc-1.42 a lot faster than gcc-2.x? > > Good question. The answer is 'yes', at least to go by what I've just > tried. I compiled cccp.c (the GNU preprocessor) with both compilers > on a P133 with BSD/OS 2.1. cc (1.42) took about 5.4 seconds, gcc > (2.7.2) took about 14 seconds. > > I think Michael's right, though. It's more a question of > compatibility than anything else. > > Greg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199607070941.CAA01347>