This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the crossgcc project.
See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots more information.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
on my shiny new FC3 system, i have both the standard gcc-3.4.2 (which i am at the moment using to build a new SH3 toolchain), as well as the bleeding edge preview gcc4 compiler.
is there any value to trying to build (just as a test) the same toolchain with gcc4? would it require ugly hacks to the scripts to override the ubiquitous calls to "gcc" with "gcc4"? i've got spare CPU cycles, might as well waste them.
No hacks needed; just make a directory ~/fakebin containing a script named gcc that contains
#!/bin/sh gcc4 "$@"
mark it executable with chmod +x gcc
then run demo-sh3.sh with PATH=~/fakebin:$PATH demo-sh3.sh
As to whether it would run faster, who knows. It would be a nice test of gcc4, though.
If you want a compiler that runs faster, you might try building it with profile feedback (either with gcc's options, or by creating a linker script that links the functions in the order they're called, or some other method of increasing locality of reference to reduce cache misses). That would be an interesting little change to crosstool.sh. - Dan
-- Trying to get a job as a c++ developer? See http://kegel.com/academy/getting-hired.html
------ Want more information? See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/ Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |