Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 09:44:32 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Dieter Buerssner <buers AT gmx DOT de>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: inefficiency of GCC output code & -O problem
In-Reply-To: <8dib4a.3vvqvqr.0@buerssner-17104.user.cis.dfn.de>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000419094348.10023H-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On 18 Apr 2000, Dieter Buerssner wrote:

> I use fsdb after compiling with -g, it shows nicely
> C source and asm together, but there exist other means

One of those other means is mentioned in section 8.20 of the FAQ
(except that it fails to say that you also need the -g option).

> You might have optimzed your code exactly for your processor.
> The C code isn't optimized to any processor, it is just what
> usual coding principles suggests.

Actually, GCC is supposed to tailor the code for the specific
processors given the -mcpu (or was it -march?) switch.  However,
it's possible that the AMD-related switch does not support the AMD
CPUs fully yet.