Message-ID: <002501be9285$af72e200$d94902c1@63970047>
From: "Damjan Glad" <damjang AT bigfoot DOT com>
To: <pgcc AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: pgcc... Do I really got it ?
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 23:16:53 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Reply-To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com


-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Lehmann <pcg AT goof DOT com>
To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com <pgcc AT delorie DOT com>
Date: 29. april 1999 2:12
Subject: Re: pgcc... Do I really got it ?


>On Wed, Apr 28, 1999 at 10:32:59PM +0200, Ronald de Man wrote:
>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.

I compiled bzip2 using:
gcc 2.7.2.3
gcc 2.8.1
egcs 1.1.2
pgcc 1.1.2

performed compresion tests on 20 meg tar file (10 megs of binaries and 10
megs of texts)

running on celeron 333a I got:

gcc 2.7.2.3 53 seconds
gcc 2.8.1 53 seconds
egcs 1.1.2 54 seconds
pgcc 1.1.3 56 seconds

??

gcc switches were -O3 -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer -m486
egcs 1.1.2 -O6 -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer -mpentiumpro
pgcc 1.1.3 -O2 -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer -mpentiumpro

pgcc 1.1.3 generates wrong code if I use -O[3456] so I didn't test it (I
didn't try to trace whitch specific -f optimization flag causes this).

bzip2 compiled using -O2 on egcs was compressing for more than 57 seconds.

I didn't try to time decompressing...

Are there any other tests? Is it really worth it?

Damjan Glad