From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "erik quanstrom" <quanstro@quanstro.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu, "Lyndon Nerenberg" <lyndon@orthanc.ca>
References: <5b5545b177a894f86028964e53e6d86b@terzarima.net> 
	<2DAC4AB5-91E3-4897-BE5F-8AF9F8B22514@orthanc.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
In-Reply-To: <2DAC4AB5-91E3-4897-BE5F-8AF9F8B22514@orthanc.ca>
Subject: Re: [9fans] sparc port, number crunching
Message-Id: <20051012014136.245E81AB1BE@dexter-peak.quanstro.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 20:41:36 -0500
Cc: 
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 99fc0e0a-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

a couple of weeks ago, i got a wild hair and compiled the stuff i'm working
on with tcc and icc. both produced debugging executables that were
at least a third smaller and tcc runs in 10% or less of the time of gcc.

	size		time 'make all'
gcc	579785		1.55user 0.94system 0:02.59elapsed
tcc	358460		0.18user 0.06system 0:00.30elapsed
icc	398670		1.10user 0.80system 0:02.04elapsed


Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@orthanc.ca> writes

| 
| 
| On Oct 11, 2005, at 4:45 PM, Charles Forsyth wrote:
| 
| > more important, gcc is the holy cow of compilers, not the holy grail.
| 
| Another entry for the fortune file.