On Wednesday 26 November 2003 13:25, David O'Brien wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 03:07:55PM +1030, Daniel O'Connor wrote: > > What about the newer version of gcc? That is considerably slower than > > previous versions, but I don't see people screaming to have it removed. > > Uh... you must not know what you are talking about. GCC *COMPILES* > slower as it does a better job of optimizing (which adds time to the > compiling time). The produced optimzied binaries have quicker > *RUN-TIME*s. I'm talking about compile time. > Why would any one want to call for a compiler to be removed that produces > faster binaries?? Ahh, why indeed.. -- Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Andrew Tanenbaum GPG Fingerprint - 9A8C 569F 685A D928 5140 AE4B 319B 41F4 5D17 FDD5Received on Tue Nov 25 2003 - 18:05:27 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:31 UTC