Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 23:53:38 +0200 To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: Pgcc 1.1.3 - bad performance on P6 Message-ID: <19990602235338.G324@cerebro.laendle> Mail-Followup-To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: ; from Krzysztof Strasburger on Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 09:14:00AM +0000 X-Operating-System: Linux version 2.2.7 (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, Jun 02, 1999 at 09:14:00AM +0000, Krzysztof Strasburger wrote: > The obvious remark is: the code produced by pgcc for P6 is suboptimal, > but why high optimizations kill the performance instead of improving it? Tuning pgcc for ppro is not yet finished. But I think the bigger effect you see is that pgcc is tuned for integer performance. You might want to try out the hints in the pgcc faq on improving fp-performance (Yes, unfortunately you can not have both at the same time yet). also, you could try a snapshot (i.e. from cvs). 1.1.x was made more for stableness than for performance (Yes, I know 1.1.3 is not the most stable release we had). -- -----==- | ----==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg AT goof DOT com |e| -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |