Re: gcc 3.2 not faster
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 20:34, Jack Howarth wrote:
> I recall reading somewhere on the gcc mailing list that
> the threshold they are trying to meet currently is for
> gcc 3.x to be less than 15% slower than gcc 2.95.4. I can't
> recall if that was for 3.1, 3.2 or 3.3.
Well my tests indicate that in some situations they didn't meet that goal.
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page