Thu Jul 13 23:53:47 CEST 2006
Vladimir Mosgalin <mosgalin at VM10124.spb.edu> writes:
> 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.
BTW, you should get a faster computer. My lowly pentium4 2.8 does a
full ffmpeg build with gcc 3.4.6 in just under 6 minutes.
>> 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.
That's good news. I know lots of development effort on gcc has gone
into c++ support, sometimes at the expense of plain c performance
(both in compilation time and code speed). GCC 3.0 was certainly
nothing to be proud of.
mru at inprovide.com
More information about the ffmpeg-devel