Message-ID: <3381C469.D2B@silesia.top.pl> Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 17:34:01 +0200 From: Michal MIME-Version: 1.0 To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: PGCC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Andrew Crabtree wrote: > > > I've downloaded binaries of PGCC for DOS... and I'm completely > > disappointment. The code that it has produced from my program (last > > address main minus first addres of my first function) is about 20% > > larger due to incredible amounts on nops inside the code. The > > My experience has been that pgcc tends NOT to add no-ops into > the code, this was something 2.7.2 was guilty of. If you have code > that demonstrates otherwise feel free to post it (instead of > just complaining). It would also help is you posted the > assembly output of the two compilers, but I can redo that myself. > What you said IS TRUE, but the nops are on the end of all functions. The amount of nops is so big thet it makes my code 20% bigger (don't know if only this), I've heard that PGCC produces smaller code, becouse it doesn't use nops. Me expirience is different, it uses nops but in different way. > > instructions are unscheduled (just swaping some pairs could halp) and > > have a lot of AGI stalls. I didn't notice any speed differences > > comparing to 2.7.2 (-02). I've used -O6 option and even some swiches > > How were you testing and measuring speed? > Just simple fps counting. I'm shure there is some difference (maybe small) but I didn't noticed any with this method (I've disabled all my assembler code in triangle rendering functions). > You might want to consider sending posts like this to the pgcc mailing list > if you can provide sufficient details. > My intention was not to complain, but to come to know what maight happend. Meybe there's a swich that I don't know abour or somethink like this? Or meybe my code is so specyfic that the compiler doesn't do its work on it (I don't think so; unscheduled instructions...)?. > Andrew