Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 21:40:58 +0200 To: "pgcc AT delorie DOT com" Subject: Re: Is "pgcc -O2 -m486" equivalent to "egcs -O2 -m486" in compile speed? Message-ID: <19990824214057.D5486@cerebro.laendle> Mail-Followup-To: "pgcc AT delorie DOT com" References: <37C1C15D DOT BF6C1A AT netplus DOT net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <37C1C15D.BF6C1A@netplus.net>; from Steve Bergman on Mon, Aug 23, 1999 at 04:47:09PM -0500 X-Operating-System: Linux version 2.2.11 (root AT cerebro) (gcc driver version 2.95 19990728 (release) executing gcc version 2.7.2.3) From: Marc Lehmann Reply-To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: pgcc AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Mon, Aug 23, 1999 at 04:47:09PM -0500, Steve Bergman wrote: > included pgcc. I do a lot of compiling, so for me (and on this slower > machine) optimization means compiling as fast as possible, not > necessarily the fastest compiled binary every time. > Does PGCC without the "fancy" options just degenerate to the Egcs/Gcc > 2.95 case? No, but pgcc -O2 should be _very_ close in compile speed to egcs -O2, likewise -O. Without optimization they both should be equally and very fast. > little short on disk space, too.) and adjust options depending upon my > degree of impatience. ;-) I do not see this covered in the FAQ, and I Well, most people using pgcc indeed use it to have fast programs. But -O2 will keep being about as fast as gcc -O2 since I do not want to introduce many differences between gcc -O and pgcc -O2, so I can still reasonably easy check wether a bug is caused by gcc or by pgcc code. -- -----==- | ----==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg AT goof DOT com |e| -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |