Date:	Mon, 21 Jun 1999 23:50:11 +0200
To:	pgcc AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: pgcc does better, reboot, then does terrible!
Message-ID:	<19990621235011.B5943@cerebro.laendle>
Mail-Followup-To:	pgcc AT delorie DOT com
References:	<3767970F DOT 307F679C AT uiuc DOT edu> <19990617214221 DOT C867 AT cerebro DOT laendle> <376E9F8F DOT FC8EC124 AT uiuc DOT edu>
Mime-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<376E9F8F.FC8EC124@uiuc.edu>; from Jon on Mon, Jun 21, 1999 at 03:24:47PM -0500
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 <pcg AT goof DOT com>
Reply-To:	pgcc AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	pgcc AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Mon, Jun 21, 1999 at 03:24:47PM -0500, Jon wrote:
> > > 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.

Debugging isn't the default! However, you might sitll have libraries
around that were compiled using debugging info.

> > 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.

The default setup is to create a static library for binutils, which can
increase the size of every binary by a megabyte.
>  
> > > 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.

Well, there are only three alternatives:

- you haven't changed anything: hardware error
- you have changed the compiler settings
- you have replaced the library or compiler in between

> I get:
> 
> cmp: EOF on ./twod
>   44387  133161  665805

_MANY_ differences.

> 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?

Most probably a look at the binaries won't help.

--  
      -----==-                                             |
      ----==-- _                                           |
      ---==---(_)__  __ ____  __       Marc Lehmann      +--
      --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ /       pcg AT goof DOT com      |e|
      -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\       XX11-RIPE         --+
    The choice of a GNU generation                       |
                                                         |

- Raw text -