Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 15:05:31 +0200 To: Pgcc Mailing List Subject: Re: performance issue Message-ID: <19990623150531.A9441@cerebro.laendle> Mail-Followup-To: Pgcc Mailing List References: <19990621182836 DOT O28893 AT io DOT txc DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <19990621182836.O28893@io.txc.com>; from Igor Schein on Mon, Jun 21, 1999 at 06:28:36PM -0400 X-Operating-System: Linux version 2.3.6 (root AT cerebro) (gcc driver version pgcc-2.95 19990524 (prerelease) 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 Mon, Jun 21, 1999 at 06:28:36PM -0400, Igor Schein wrote: > > I'm compiling a computationally-intensive program where performance is > an important issue. I have AMD K6, so I use -mk6. I do have an > option to use either -march=i486 ( default ) or -march=k6. With > latter, I get slightly worse performance benchmarks. So I was > wondering, is K6 optimization going to be improved before the next > release? I obviously expect -march=k6 to produce better benchmarks. The principle problem with the k6 is that I don't have one, so I can't check ;) I've ported the k6 code from egcs because I thought it was done by people _having_ an k6, however, and now Jan claims that the egcs code is basically bad for performance. > P.S. If I don't specify -mk6, gcc segfaults. So while that's not > a work-stopper for me now, you might want to take a look at it. If its not too large, yes. > What is the default cpu target? Depends on how it was configured. Usually its the cpu the compiler was built on. -- -----==- | ----==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg AT goof DOT com |e| -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |