Date:	Wed, 2 Jun 1999 23:53:38 +0200
To:	pgcc AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Pgcc 1.1.3 - bad performance on P6
Message-ID:	<19990602235338.G324@cerebro.laendle>
Mail-Followup-To:	pgcc AT delorie DOT com
References:	<m10p76W-00020nC AT chkw386 DOT ch DOT pwr DOT wroc DOT pl>
Mime-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<m10p76W-00020nC@chkw386.ch.pwr.wroc.pl>; from Krzysztof Strasburger on Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 09:14:00AM +0000
X-Operating-System:	Linux version 2.2.7 (root AT cerebro) (gcc driver version pgcc-2.93.09 19990221 (gcc2 ss-980929 experimental) executing gcc version 2.7.2.3)
From:	Marc Lehmann <pcg AT goof DOT com>
Reply-To:	pgcc AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	pgcc AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 09:14:00AM +0000, Krzysztof Strasburger wrote:

> The obvious remark is: the code produced by pgcc for P6 is suboptimal,
> but why high optimizations kill the performance instead of improving it? 

Tuning pgcc for ppro is not yet finished. But I think the bigger effect
you see is that pgcc is tuned for integer performance. You might want
to try out the hints in the pgcc faq on improving fp-performance (Yes,
unfortunately you can not have both at the same time yet).

also, you could try a snapshot (i.e. from cvs). 1.1.x was made more for
stableness than for performance (Yes, I know 1.1.3 is not the most stable
release we had).

--  
      -----==-                                             |
      ----==-- _                                           |
      ---==---(_)__  __ ____  __       Marc Lehmann      +--
      --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ /       pcg AT goof DOT com      |e|
      -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\       XX11-RIPE         --+
    The choice of a GNU generation                       |
                                                         |

- Raw text -