Message-ID:	<376F4526.676EC752@uiuc.edu>
Date:	Tue, 22 Jun 1999 03:11:18 -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!(SOLVED)
References:	<19990617231401 DOT A968 AT cerebro DOT laendle> <199906190750 DOT CAA23996 AT ux12 DOT cso DOT uiuc DOT edu> <19990621230312 DOT Q25668 AT cerebro DOT laendle>
Reply-To:	pgcc AT delorie DOT com

I'd like to thank everyone for their help!  Esp. Marc with his patience!
:)

I just realized what happened and verified it and it's the case.

As the binaries show and Marc understood the Fast binary must have been
compiled with just egcs, not pgcc.  While I thought this was crazy after
all the checking I thought I did, it's the case.

I believe my error lies with editting the links and somehow bash picked
up stale links, after reboot everything was clean so pgcc was used. 
That's solved, understood.

If I use egcs for some reason -mcpu=pentiumpro -march=pentiumpro work! 
-mstack-align-double doesn't, the compiler complains.  What works with
egcs1.1.2 is:

CFLAGS = -Wall -mpentium -mcpu=pentiumpro -march=pentiumpro -O4
-malign-loops=2 -malign-jumps=2 -malign-functions=2 -malign-double
--fast-math -pg

With this setup, using the above and egcs I get great fast times and
apparently a solid binary.

Fast:
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/specs
gcc version egcs-2.91.66 19990314/Linux (egcs-1.1.2 release)

Slow:
Reading specs from
/usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-linux-gnu/pgcc-2.91.66/specs
gcc version pgcc-2.91.66 19990314 (egcs-1.1.2 release)

So now that I've solved my puzzle(should havn't trusted my doings and
just tried to understand the binary's obvious-telling difference):

WHY is pgcc so much slower?  I'm happy to give over my code in order for
anyone(Marc?) to look at this.  pgcc is about 30% slower.  Shouldn't it
be the other way around?? :)  That's one reason why I was also very
confused.

I see another message about the k6 stuff actually being slower too. 
Seems pgcc has a problem of sorts doing the opposite it intends!

Thanks again for all your help!
Jonathan McKinney

---------------------------------------------
Marc Lehmann wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Jun 19, 1999 at 02:50:14AM -0500, jonathan c mckinney wrote:
> > Well, pgcc = egcs+patches, so not sure what your point is.
> 
> The point is that egcs != pgcc.
> 
> > And I already said that I used the -mcpu=pentiumpro and
> > -march=pentiumpro compile options on both with no errors, so you can't
> > be right in thinking I used the old egcs.
> > I KNOW that's not the case.
> 
> Well, _something_ in your mail _must_ be wrong. Either the excerpts
> (see below) from the binary (which show that egcs was the compiler) are
> inco,plete or wrong, or you did not use pgcc.
> 
> > You a newbie too?
> 
> Probably.
> 
> > > On Thu, Jun 17, 1999 at 03:46:38AM -0500, JonMcK wrote:
> > > > 19990314/Linux (egcs-1.1.2 release)^@^@GCC: (GNU) egcs-2.91.66
> > > > 19990314/Linux (egcs-1.1.2 release)^@^@GCC: (GNU) egcs-2.91.66
> > > > 19990314/Linux (egcs-1.1.2
> > > > release)^^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^A^@^@^@01.01^@^@^^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^A^@^@^@01.01
> 
> No sign of pgcc.
> 
> --
>       -----==-                                             |
>       ----==-- _                                           |
>       ---==---(_)__  __ ____  __       Marc Lehmann      +--
>       --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ /       pcg AT goof DOT com      |e|
>       -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\       XX11-RIPE         --+
>     The choice of a GNU generation                       |
>                                                          |

- Raw text -