X-pop3-spooler:	POP3MAIL 2.1.0 b 4 980420 -bs-
Message-ID:	<19980720151733.44099@cerebro.laendle>
Date:	Mon, 20 Jul 1998 15:17:33 +0200
From:	Marc Lehmann <pcg AT goof DOT com>
To:	Vincent Diepeveen <diep AT xs4all DOT nl>
Cc:	beastium <beastium-list AT Desk DOT nl>
Subject:	Re: speed PGCC vs GCC for DIEP
Mail-Followup-To:	Vincent Diepeveen <diep AT xs4all DOT nl>,
	beastium <beastium-list AT desk DOT nl>
References:	<3 DOT 0 DOT 32 DOT 19980720133355 DOT 009354b0 AT xs4all DOT nl>
Mime-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<3.0.32.19980720133355.009354b0@xs4all.nl>; from Vincent Diepeveen on Mon, Jul 20, 1998 at 01:33:58PM +0000
X-Operating-System:	Linux version 2.1.109 (root AT cerebro) (gcc version pgcc-2.91.50 19980714 (gcc2 ss-980609 experimental))
Status:	RO
Lines:	23

On Mon, Jul 20, 1998 at 01:33:58PM +0000, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I'd be glad to receive additional optimizations i can try on it, and also
> how can i dissassemble the code of pgcc, so that i can report what can be
> improved during optimization (if assume like to receive this)?

you can use objdump to disassamble the object files or binaries, or, even
better, just instruct gcc to skip the assembler and output assembly code.

> Here the makefile and notes about speed are written by CFLAGS.

this is very interesting, I can't explain it. Can you send me the source,
or part of it which I can use as a benchmark? Without source to check
I can't help you.

      -----==-                                              |
      ----==-- _                                            |
      ---==---(_)__  __ ____  __       Marc Lehmann       +--
      --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ /       pcg AT goof DOT com       |e|
      -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\                          --+
    The choice of a GNU generation                        |
                                                          |

- Raw text -