Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 21:39:09 +0200 From: Marc Lehmann To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: pgcc didn't perform for me Message-ID: <20000929213909.O634@cerebro.laendle> Mail-Followup-To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com References: <00092908391500 DOT 02822 AT struppi> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <00092908391500.02822@struppi>; from hanke@nada.kth.se on Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 08:34:08AM +0200 X-Operating-System: Linux version 2.2.17 (root AT cerebro) (gcc version pgcc-2.95.2 19991024 (release)) X-Copyright: copyright 2000 Marc Alexander Lehmann - all rights reserved Reply-To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: pgcc AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 08:34:08AM +0200, Michael Hanke wrote: > applications on an Athlon, too. I made some tests with egcs-1.1.2 and > pgcc-2.95.3. It turned out that (besides other switches) -march=486 on egcs > gave best performance. So my questions are: Which switches do you use for this One of the major problems with pgcc (and to a less extent also gcc) is that most problems are very very reactive to the compiler switches used. With pgcc this was a major problem in the past, but gcc now also has this problem. If you want maximum performance you have to experiment. For some problems, gcc-2.7.2 performs better than 2.95.2 for example, although in general the latter performs much better than the former. -- -----==- | ----==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg AT opengroup DOT org |e| -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |