Thu Jul 13 23:22:02 CEST 2006
Hi M?ns Rullg?rd!
On 2006.07.13 at 21:29:38 +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote next:
> > Rich Felker wrote:
> >> Yes, gcc devs want to keep us from discovering and using the
> >> infinitely superior gcc 2.95 !! :)
> > Loathe as I am to admit it, you might be onto something here, at least
> > for compilation speed. gcc 2.95 compiles the tree in 15 minutes. 3.4.6
> > takes 21 minutes. ~30 minutes for 4.1.1.
> In theory, the compiler could be spending that extra time optimizing
> the code. Were that the case, I'd happily trade a little compilation
> time for faster execution. Sadly, I'm afraid this is not the case
Haven't you read benchmarks in mplayer-dev list? It IS the case here.
Binary compiled with gcc4 is faster than the one compiled with gcc3,
which is faster than gcc295 binary.
I also noticed speed improvements in mplayer when going from 2.96 to
gcc3 some years ago. Haven't used mplayer in pre-2.96 times (before mid
2002) and noticed no improvement when switching from 3.2->3.3, 3.3->3.4,
3.4->4.0, so can't comment that.
I still have 3.2 and 2.96 installed on my system, so I can do some
benchmarks too if you doubt that..
More information about the ffmpeg-devel