Message-ID:	<376E9F8F.FC8EC124@uiuc.edu>
Date:	Mon, 21 Jun 1999 15:24:47 -0500
From:	Jon <jcmcknny AT uiuc DOT edu>
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>
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

- Raw text -