Message-ID: <36E726A8.82CA4F9E@t-online.de>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 03:12:56 +0100
Organization: LISA GmbH
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.36 i686)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: gcc-2.7.0 creates faster code than pgcc-1.1.1
References: <Pine DOT LNX DOT 4 DOT 04 DOT 9903021302300 DOT 1724-100000 AT alcatraz DOT fdf DOT net> <199903022313 DOT RAA17721 AT mail DOT mankato DOT msus DOT edu> <19990303165906 DOT A4028 AT cerebro DOT laendle> <36DDD2C1 DOT 421DD4AF AT t-online DOT de> <19990309175312 DOT G2217 AT cerebro DOT laendle> <36E5C625 DOT 57398450 AT t-online DOT de> <19990310173716 DOT F29392 AT cerebro DOT laendle>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Sender: 0303277050-0001 AT t-online DOT de
From: hpj DOT lisa AT t-online DOT de (Hans-Peter Jansen)
Reply-To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com

Marc Lehmann wrote:
>  
> > > This is with the snapshot pgcc, btw. The release might have some
> > > hand-tuning to be correct rather than fast in some cases.
> >
> > Because of some probs with current pgcc mentioned in linux-kernel and
> 
> (btw, the linux-kernel is not fixed to work with newer versions of gcc,
> so you better not try that one. Also, kde only recently upgraded their
> sources to C++ (they used an unsupported c++ dialect before that pgcc does
> not understand)).

The only problems, I had (with pgcc 1.1.1), was some mega functions in kspread,
which is in alpha stage anyway. Currently the CVS HEAD branch is a mess, b/c
they move the whole stuff to qt 2.0, so this is inedible for me. Even koffice
in the 1.1 branch doesn't compile for me :( not depending on what cc is used...

What I care is the significant bigger binaries with pgcc (although I use it
as long as it compiles). Is it because the alignments, or bigger obcodes used?
I'm interested in your recommendation of options to get the smallest possible 
code (beside -Os)?

> > kde-devel, I restrained from installing egcs/pgcc snapshot versions.
> 
> I'm very picky about these issues. AFAIK there are problems with both kde
> and linux-kernel, NOT with egcs or pgcc.
> 
> (Surely pgcc snapshots have bugs, but people just like to claim "egcs" is
> broken. They will be surprised when the next gcc version won't compile
> their programs, either)

I had a few problems with macros without parentheses... No big deal.
 
> > When the next release is planned? What about Linus' whining about
> > undefined references and inlining? Is there a consence now?
> 
> The consensus is that Linus tries to read the documentation before
> flaming and the egcs developers try to help the kernel by supporting more
> interfaces in the future.
> 
> Also, Linus does not support current gcc, egcs or pgcc. Point.

Sometimes, something has to show him, he's mortal, too ;)
 
> > Do you think, that current snapshots optimizes k6 objects really better,
> > or is there any other explanation about our experiences?
> 
> The snapshots have a totally different (and IMHO better) scheduling
> system for amd. I haven't benchmarked these extensivley (not at all, to
> be clear), but they might indeed make a few percent difference. When in
> doubt, run your favourite benchmark/application. The latter test will tell
> you wether pgcc is _really_ faster for _your_ problem.

Kernelwise, i will stick to 2.7.2.3 then, but I will try cvs-pgcc on the rest
and let you you. What cc do you use for your kernel?

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