X-pop3-spooler:	POP3MAIL 2.1.0 b 4 980420 -bs-
Message-Id:	<3.0.32.19980902142459.009bf220@xs4all.nl>
X-Sender:	diep AT xs4all DOT nl
X-Mailer:	Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date:	Wed, 02 Sep 1998 14:25:01 +0000
To:	strasbur AT chkw386 DOT ch DOT pwr DOT wroc DOT pl (Krzysztof Strasburger),
	beastium-list AT Desk DOT nl
From:	Vincent Diepeveen <diep AT xs4all DOT nl>
Subject:	Re: pgcc-1.1a - first impression
Mime-Version:	1.0
Sender:	Marc Lehmann <pcg AT goof DOT com>
Status:	RO
Lines:	33

At 11:44 AM 9/2/98, Krzysztof Strasburger wrote:
>Hi!
>I just downloaded and compiled pgcc-1.1a and did a simple comparison
>with the older pgcc-1.0.3a (my own FPU-intensive program).
>Compilation options:
>-march=pentium -mcpu=pentium -On -ffast-math -frerun-loop-opt
>-malign-double -mstack-align-double -malign-jumps=0 -malign-loops=0
>-malign-functions=0,
>where n=2,3,4 or s
>The first thing I noticed is code bloat :-(, but this is rather egcs
>related problem. Here are file sizes (in bytes):
>pgcc-1.0.3a: -O2    -O3    -O4
>             46600  46920  48024
>pgcc-1.1a: -O2    -O3    -O4    -Os
>           47880  48296  49224  46888
>The second thing I noticed is no speed improvement on Pentium :-(((
>(this is valid for tested program only, of course).
>And now the good news. The optimization on Pentium Pro is better than before.
>Here are execution times (only -mcpu=pentiumpro -march=pentiumpro different
>than in previous example) averaged over 9 runs:
>pgcc-1.0.3a:  -O2     -O3
>              28.24s  28.95s
>pgcc-1.1a     -O2     -O3     -Os
>              28.45s  27.97s  28.12s
>The performance win is not very big, but higher optimization options 
>improve the performance for newer pgcc instead of degrading it.
>The code optimized for size performs surprisingly well.
>Krzysztof

Cool i'll try at DIEP whether there is speed improvement.

Greetings,
Vincent

- Raw text -