From:	pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
Message-ID:	<B0000100256@stargate.astr.lu.lv>
To:	pavenis AT lanet DOT lv, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:56:15 +0300
MIME-Version:	1.0
Subject:	Re: gcc-2.95.1
In-reply-to:	<B0000100246@stargate.astr.lu.lv>
X-mailer:	Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12a)
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On 2 Sep 99, at 12:48, pavenis AT lanet DOT lv wrote:

> Hi!
> 
> Did some benchmarking of gcc-2.95.1 configured both with and 
> without --haifa-enable on 4 diffent CPUs:
> 
> 	- i486 DX266   - no evident difference between 2 compilers (with
>                                    and without --enable-haifa)
> 	- Pentium 200MMX -  the same
> 	- K6-2 300 - HAIFA enabled compiler generates about 20% faster
> 	                     code for -O0 and -O2. For -O3 difference is smaller or
>                              is absent in some conditions

Seems that I was wrong about K6-2 300. Perhaps these results are not 
reliable as something else has been started at middle of benchmarking
when I left all this at night. So we don't have reliable difference in 
efficiency of generated code up to this time.

>         - Pentium 2 350MHz - no evident difference
> 	
> So it remains unclear whether I should use --enable-haifa for binaries 
> I'll upload to ftp.delorie.com

As result perhaps it's best to avoid using --enable-haifa (it's default)

Andris

- Raw text -