From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] Rant (was Re: Plan9 and Ada95?) From: forsyth@vitanuova.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="upas-djfffsbyyfowwpaikxnsgbfiib" Message-Id: <20011109135543.8B574199ED@mail.cse.psu.edu> Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 14:01:23 +0000 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 1c8be02c-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --upas-djfffsbyyfowwpaikxnsgbfiib Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit sometimes the plan 9 compilers do things that gcc doesn't, partly because adherence to an often elaborate ABI isn't required. certainly that's true on the PowerPC and i think it's also true on the ARM. i'd say from inspection of gcc and experience of 5? that the 5l linker for ARM has an easier time sorting out literal pools and ARM/Thumb linkage than the gcc system, partly because it's working with an abstract object program as input, not the encoded instruction forms. we can then convert the resulting executable into a form that other systems like. --upas-djfffsbyyfowwpaikxnsgbfiib Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: <9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu> Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net by mailstore for forsyth@vitanuova.com id 1005313503:10:17599:1; Fri, 09 Nov 2001 13:45:03 GMT Received: from psuvax1.cse.psu.edu ([130.203.4.6]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1114434; 9 Nov 2001 13:44 GMT Received: from psuvax1.cse.psu.edu (psuvax1.cse.psu.edu [130.203.4.6]) by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id B788119A3E; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 08:44:08 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Received: from cs.usask.ca (cs.usask.ca [128.233.130.77]) by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id 3CD67199ED for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 08:43:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ultra5a.usask.ca (ultra5a.usask.ca [128.233.130.120]) by cs.usask.ca (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id HAA16746 for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 07:43:53 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (aam396@localhost) by ultra5a.usask.ca (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id HAA08902 for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 07:43:52 -0600 (CST) X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5a.usask.ca: aam396 owned process doing -bs X-Sender: aam396@ultra5a.usask.ca To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] Rant (was Re: Plan9 and Ada95?) In-Reply-To: <87d72tvzeq.fsf@becket.becket.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu Errors-To: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu X-BeenThere: 9fans@cse.psu.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu List-Id: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans.cse.psu.edu> List-Archive: Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 07:43:52 -0600 (CST) plan9's compilers generate code with comparably equal performance to gcc 2.9.5 no, the code is not faster, no, the code is not noticeably slower for jobs that do not require 5 days to complete (image rendering is what I have tested -- povray on identical hardware). that much I can say. andrey On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > nigel@9fs.org writes: > > > >> Has anyone compared the efficiency of the code produced by GCC and the > > >> Plan 9 compiler? > > > > I'm not sure that this is a very important issue, whichever is better. > > There's been a lot of noise about how GCC might be more ugly, or > poorly constructed, or such. I'm asking whether amidst all that noise > anyone has bothered to see whether it actually performs its job better > or worse. It does seem to me to be an important question in > evaluating tools which one is actually better at the principal job the > tool is designed to perform. > --upas-djfffsbyyfowwpaikxnsgbfiib--