The results are in after a successfull GCC 3.0 install. 

No other apps running, but run in X. 

X-povray is the standard binary download from povray.org
and therefor not compiled by myself. 

Xmegapov was compiled by myself with gcc 2.95, xmegapy07_gc3 and
xpovray_gc3 were compiled by myself with gcc 3.0, no makefiles
were tampered with, these are all straight out of the box. 

xmegapov -i skyvase.pov -w640 -h480 +a0.1   
Time For Parse:    0 hours  0 minutes   1.0 seconds (1 seconds)
Time For Trace:    0 hours  4 minutes  28.0 seconds (268 seconds)
    Total Time:    0 hours  4 minutes  29.0 seconds (269 seconds)

xmegapov07_gc3 -i skyvase.pov -w640 -h480 +a0.1
Time For Trace:    0 hours  4 minutes   9.0 seconds (249 seconds)
    Total Time:    0 hours  4 minutes   9.0 seconds (249 seconds)

x-povray -i skyvase.pov -w640 -h480 +a0.1
Time For Trace:    0 hours  3 minutes  57.0 seconds (237 seconds)
    Total Time:    0 hours  3 minutes  57.0 seconds (237 seconds)

xpovray_gc3 -i skyvase.pov -w640 -h480 +a0.1
Time For Trace:    0 hours  3 minutes  47.0 seconds (227 seconds)
    Total Time:    0 hours  3 minutes  47.0 seconds (227 seconds)

--
Cheers
Steve              email mailto:ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet

%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee  0 pps. 

web http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/

or  http://start.at/zero-pps

  1:52am  up 139 days,  2:43,  2 users,  load average: 0.13, 0.42, 0.52

Post a reply to this message

Reading the 3.0 announce info from LinuxToday I saw that the executables 
should be 5/10% faster than 2.95. The above mentioned results seem to 
completely confirm this info.

Bye!!1

Post a reply to this message

Is GCC compiled with GCC? How would a GCC 3.0 compiled with 2.95 compare to
one compiled with 3.0? (If that makes any sense at all...)

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 23:00:35 -0600, "Tony[B]" <ben### [at] catholicorg>
wrote:

>Is GCC compiled with GCC? How would a GCC 3.0 compiled with 2.95 compare to
>one compiled with 3.0? (If that makes any sense at all...)

Of course it makes sense. This is how gcc compiles itself from source.
First it compiles with whatever compiler you have, then it compiles
with itself, and then it compiles with itself again. Then, if the last
two copies match, it installs itself. This is called bootstrapping
IIRC.


Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG      e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 23 Jun 2001 10:25:46 +0300, Peter Popov wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 23:00:35 -0600, "Tony[B]" <ben### [at] catholicorg>
>wrote:
>
>>Is GCC compiled with GCC? How would a GCC 3.0 compiled with 2.95 compare to
>>one compiled with 3.0? (If that makes any sense at all...)
>
>Of course it makes sense. This is how gcc compiles itself from source.
>First it compiles with whatever compiler you have, then it compiles
>with itself, and then it compiles with itself again. Then, if the last
>two copies match, it installs itself. This is called bootstrapping
>IIRC.

Yes thats what it seems to do, it takes two hours to build. 

--
Cheers
Steve              email mailto:ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet

%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee  0 pps. 

web http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/

or  http://start.at/zero-pps

  1:54pm  up 141 days, 14:45,  2 users,  load average: 1.00, 1.06, 1.04

Post a reply to this message

> Yes thats what it seems to do, it takes two hours to build.

Yech... :P

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 24 Jun 2001 21:55:23 -0600, Tony[B] wrote:
>> Yes thats what it seems to do, it takes two hours to build.
>
>Yech... :P

That's two hours to build GCC, not POV. 


--
Cheers
Steve              email mailto:ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet

%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee  0 pps. 

web http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/

or  http://start.at/zero-pps

 12:00pm  up 143 days, 12:51,  2 users,  load average: 1.12, 1.05, 1.03

Post a reply to this message