Re: gcc 3.2 not faster
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 03:38:04PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote:
> I thought that gcc 3.2 was supposed to be faster, however I have just done
> some benchmarks to show the opposite:
The most productive thing you can do is come up with testcases and
file bugs. I'm sure patches would be looked at too. GCC had a lot of
changes between 2.x and 3.x and there were certainly some regressions.
3.2 seems to be a lot better than 3.0, and I'm sure 3.3 and 3.4 are
(will be) better yet. 3.3 appears close to release and it has been
branched in CVS for several weeks now. The GCC mainline is now what
will eventually be GCC 3.4, and it should be even "better". If you can
reproduce code quality regressions with GCC's CVS HEAD, by all means
file bugs.
Reply to: