From mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Fri Oct 10 09:39:19 2008 X-ME-UUID: 20081010103840823.C92027000082@mwinf2e28.orange.fr Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:38:24 +0200 From: Patrice Mandin To: mint Cc: "Miro Kropacek" Subject: Re: [MiNT] Some comments on gcc 4.3.2 Message-Id: <20081010123824.03e0a925.mandin.patrice@orange.fr> In-Reply-To: References: Organization: Chez moi X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.5.0 (GTK+ 2.12.11; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Errors-to: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi X-original-sender: mandin.patrice@orange.fr Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-Id: X-List-ID: List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mail.sparemint.org id m9ADdI31019989 Le Sat, 4 Oct 2008 20:38:54 +0200 "Miro Kropacek" a _crit: > - performance: I measured quake compilation on real CT60@70 MHz machine with > -O3 -m68020-60: > > gcc 2.95 (68000 version): 7:30 minutes > gcc 4.2.3 (68000 version): 21 minutes > gcc 4.3.2 (68000 version): 23:40 minutes > gcc 4.3.2 (68020-60 version): 22:20 minutes > > As you can see, there's deep difference between 2.x and 4.x range... even > 68000 vs 68020 isn't anything important, all of them are damn slow... > practically, on anything other than cross compiler I really wouldn't want to > see my daily development under 4.x gcc... Mikro, do you see a difference in the generated code size (both .o files, and the final binary) ? Currently, with cross-compiler, I see something like +10/15% in generated code size between gcc 3.x and 4.x, for the same optimisation settings (-O2 -m68020 when I compiled Doom for example). -- Patrice Mandin WWW: http://pmandin.atari.org/ Programmeur Linux, Atari Spécialité: Développement, jeux