Re: gcc 3.3: largest *and* smallest kernels (was Re: [PATCH]

[Alan Cox]

On Sul, 2003-06-22 at 06:39, Barry K. Nathan wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 07:17:05PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Compared to 2.95.3, gcc-3.3 takes 1.5x as long to compile, and produces a
> > kernel which is 200k larger.
> > 
> > It is simply worthless.
> 
> gcc 2.95.3 does compile faster than 3.3, but I don't think 3.3 is simply
> worthless:

With 2.95 people did benchmarks a long time back and -Os was outperforming
-O2 on some platforms at least. I'd bet the same is true with 3.3 on a
celeron too