Message-ID: <376E9F8F.FC8EC124@uiuc.edu> Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 15:24:47 -0500 From: Jon X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: pgcc does better, reboot, then does terrible! References: <3767970F DOT 307F679C AT uiuc DOT edu> <19990617214221 DOT C867 AT cerebro DOT laendle> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Reply-To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com Marc Lehmann wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 16, 1999 at 07:22:39AM -0500, JonMcK wrote: > > > > I read about binutils2.9.1 being needed for mmx, etc. so I decided to > > compile->install that. I wasn't sure what version I already had, turns out > > I think I had 2.9.1. Oddly, my compiled binutils files are huge! I didn't > > realize "larger" meant 10X larger! Anyways, this isn't the problem. > > have you stripped them? debugging info tends to get huge. Also you might > want to compilöe them without exsception tables (-fno-exception). Now it's only 3X larger :) I just compiled them with default options. Why is debugging a default? Seems odd. This though isn't my problem really. > Also maybe libbfd &c. was linked statically into the executables. Anything is possible, I figured the default setup would be fine. But alas, this is small beans compared to my real problem. > > I looked at all my options, trying to see if I just happened to change > > something, then I remember a directory where I compiled the old good > > version. I run that binary, and it's FAST, just like it was before! I then > > move that in a safe place and recompile with the EXACT same settings as that > > FAST one was compiled. I run it, and it's SLOW! I compare the binaries and > > they are DIFFERENT! > > Then, with a 99.9% chance, the settings were different ;) I know the settings aren't different. In any event I've tried different settings and can't get NEAR the performance this other binary I previously compiled has. > How many differences are there ("cmp -l file1 file2 | wc" will outpout a > measure for that).? If there are few only then maybe its an embedded date. > If the binaries are almost identical (<10 differences or so) then cache > colouring effects might take place. I get: cmp: EOF on ./twod 44387 133161 665805 But as I mentioned in a new mail, they do have odd differences. > > 1) WHAT THE HECK did I do? Could binutils do this? > > Improbable, however, if the only thing you changed were binutils I guess > that was it. Can you try with the old binutils? I installed the old binutils but no effect. I'm still no closer to knowing what happened. I have the 2 binaries still, they are only 50k each...Anyone with knowledge can take a look at them? -Jon