This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the crossgcc project.

See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots more information.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Is gcc 2.95 or 3 faster for M68K app?

From: David Wuertele <dave-gnus at bfnet dot com>
To: crossgcc at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 11:40:57 -0700
Subject: Re: Is gcc 2.95 or 3 faster for M68K app?
Organization: Berkeley Fluent Network
References: <4178DA14.7080306@procaptura.com> <4178F26E.3050405@kegel.com><4179033D.1020506@procaptura.com>

Toralf> This is a bit depressing... I've been using a compiler from
Toralf> Microware released some 20 years ago, and generates binaries
Toralf> that are about half the size of the gcc ones, and even without
Toralf> optimisation are faster than gcc -02 output...

I have had the same experience on my mipsel platform when moving from
gcc-2.95 to any later version of gcc.  gcc-3.3.3 generates binaries
that are between 10% and 50% larger, slightly slower, and soft
floating point seems to be buggier.


------
Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com

References:
- Is gcc 2.95 or 3 faster for M68K app?
  - From: Toralf Lund
- Re: Is gcc 2.95 or 3 faster for M68K app?
  - From: Dan Kegel
- Re: Is gcc 2.95 or 3 faster for M68K app?
  - From: Toralf Lund

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]