Mail Archives: pgcc/1998/07/21/05:31:10
>At 03:17 PM 7/20/98 +0200, you wrote:
>>On Mon, Jul 20, 1998 at 01:33:58PM +0000, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>> Hello,
>
>>> I'd be glad to receive additional optimizations i can try on it, and also
>>> how can i dissassemble the code of pgcc, so that i can report what can be
>>> improved during optimization (if assume like to receive this)?
>>you can use objdump to disassamble the object files or binaries, or, even
>>better, just instruct gcc to skip the assembler and output assembly code.
>I'll try that.
>Right now trying several optimizations.
>>> Here the makefile and notes about speed are written by CFLAGS.
>>this is very interesting, I can't explain it. Can you send me the source,
>>or part of it which I can use as a benchmark? Without source to check
>>I can't help you.
>>
>Nice try, but my program is not gnu.
We all should flame you. Nobody wants to steal your code, the only thing
Marc wants to do is to find out what is wrong in the compiler or if there
was a mistake in your code snipplet or in whatever. Without this code as
an equal base for discussions it is very hard to argue.
>I'll study assembler output of pgcc and the optimization failures, and will
>email you personally changed C code and labels that are causing problems and
>compile to that horrible assembler.
[... deleted ...]
>Now K6-350Mhz SDRAM at 112Mhz bus is slower than PII-300 EDO RAM.
>Few months ago K6-200 used to be as fast as Pentium pro 200...
>...right now nothing can stop PII, and especially not PII because i can
>run parallel soon on it. AMD/IBM K6 and Cyrix M2 regrettably can't run be
>put on a dual or quatro motherboard.
>Anyway K6 is fast considering its price, but is it smart for a
>compiler to make optimizations for an outdated socket 7 clone?
>Assuming i have the choice, when selling software, then i'll
>NEVER deliver a K6 optimized version, but always a PII/PRO optimized one,
>which also runs at pentium (so without incompatible instructions like cmove).
>I'll do that because i think socket 7 is outdated. No future.
>Look to the level 2 cache what they did to it. They put it at the mainboard!!
>Awfull! So socket 7 has no future, the faster your processor, the less
>you profit from it as level 2 cache speed kills you.
>That's what happens to my program when running on 350+ Mhz K6, it runs slow
>on it. Slower than on a PII-266 SDRAM even, and one of the reasons is
>level 2 cache.
There is just one reason why I did not buy a Cray, an Ultra-Sparc or some
other cpu which is faster than PII, it's the money I dont want to spend.
When you divide the performance thru the price, still AMD is one of the best.
What does it help when I pay three or four times more for a computer which
will be absolutely outdated in next spring? So I will still buy cheep AMD,
Cyrix or even IDT, because these are the fastet for the money I am willing
to spend.
What about selling your program bundled with a quattro-Xeon-board ;-)
>Vincent
--
Wolfgang Formann
- Raw text -