From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] p9/linux/fbsd compiler shootout From: andrey mirtchovski MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20020226150031.A2A4B19A1C@mail.cse.psu.edu> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 08:02:54 -0700 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 564fac80-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 > The compile time using for the BSD/2.95/no test looks *really* low; > are we sure about that number? It's a very strange outlier, isn't it? > I'll mostly ignore that one, because it is *such* a surprise; GCC > isn't normally thought to be that fast, but hey, maybe it really is. > several more tests yield exactly the same results -- FBSD 4.5 w/ gcc2.95 takes about 18 seconds to compile. > A total curiosity is that running the Linux binaries under emulation > in BSD is *faster* than running the native BSD binaries. It's hard to > imagine that the BSD team specially optimized that case, does anyone > have any knowledge or guesses? > gcc 3.0 on FBSD was locally compiled and installed (as was noted in the explanations), had it been taken from a binary package it _must_ have been much faster (all we did was 'make; make install')... something else i forgot to mention: gcc 3.0 on linux (rpm install) complains of -m386 being deprecated (-m386 is part of the CFLAGS switches povray uses)... gcc3.0 on FBSD did not say anything about -m386... I find this very strange.