Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 01:49:44 +0200 To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: pgcc... Do I really got it ? Message-ID: <19990429014944.I18899@cerebro.laendle> Mail-Followup-To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com References: <19990428201537 DOT A27287 AT win DOT tue DOT nl> <19990428223259 DOT B28723 AT win DOT tue DOT nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <19990428223259.B28723@win.tue.nl>; from Ronald de Man on Wed, Apr 28, 1999 at 10:32:59PM +0200 X-Operating-System: Linux version 2.2.6 (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 Reply-To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: pgcc AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Wed, Apr 28, 1999 at 10:32:59PM +0200, Ronald de Man wrote: > > This works for gcc (and gives output similar to `gcc -v`). > I think the question was how to recognize that an arbitrary > binary has been compiled with pentium optimizations. I know > of no way to determine this. Benchmark it against a known non-optimized version ;-> (sorry, I couldn't resist). Judging from the original mail, I think the binary was indeed pentium optimized. Possible sources of errors include: - not _really_ using pgcc to compile the binary. - pgcc didn't optimize at all - wrong testing methodology However, its very very rare that a pgcc-optimized cpu-intensive program shows _exactly_ the same execution time as a gcc-optimized. -- -----==- | ----==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg AT goof DOT com |e| -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |