Date: Tue, 09 Jul 1996 00:29:13 -0700 From: Doug Wellington <doug@sun1paztcn.wr.usgs.gov> To: Amancio Hasty <hasty@rah.star-gate.com> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org, doug@sun1paztcn.wr.usgs.gov Subject: Re: A faster compiler? ( Re: gcc lies? ) Message-ID: <9607090729.AA18149@sun1paztcn.wr.usgs.gov> In-Reply-To: "Your message of Sun, 07 Jul 1996 23:50:25 MST." <199607080650.XAA02788@rah.star-gate.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Previously: >Well, I sure hope someone does a performance analysis on gcc-1.42 vs gcc-2.xx >or a faster compiler comes along . I know that there is always the argument for consistent code generation, but you might try looking at lcc. An article in Linux Journal quotes times to compile lcc with lcc and with gcc. Lcc compiled itself in 36 seconds and gcc compiled lcc in 68 seconds with default optimization and 130 seconds for maximum optimization. Interestingly, the lcc compiled program ran in 36 seconds and the gcc program ran in 30. (So gcc gains about 20% speed for the almost 400% compile time...) Check out http://www.princeton.edu/software/lcc/ -Doug Doug Wellington doug@sun1paztcn.wr.usgs.gov System and Network Administrator US Geological Survey, Tucson, AZ Project Office According to proposed Federal guidelines, this message is a "non-record". Hmm, I wonder if _everything_ I say is a "non-record"...? FreeBSD and Apache - the best real tools for the virtual world! Check out www.freebsd.org and www.apache.org... Just say NO to Netscape Navigator!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9607090729.AA18149>