Date:	Fri, 29 Sep 2000 21:39:09 +0200
From:	Marc Lehmann <pcg AT goof DOT com>
To:	pgcc AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: pgcc didn't perform for me
Message-ID:	<20000929213909.O634@cerebro.laendle>
Mail-Followup-To:	pgcc AT delorie DOT com
References:	<Pine DOT LNX DOT 4 DOT 21 DOT 0009281605000 DOT 29640-100000 AT complex DOT if DOT uff DOT br> <00092908391500 DOT 02822 AT struppi>
Mime-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<00092908391500.02822@struppi>; from hanke@nada.kth.se on Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 08:34:08AM +0200
X-Operating-System:	Linux version 2.2.17 (root AT cerebro) (gcc version pgcc-2.95.2 19991024 (release))
X-Copyright:	copyright 2000 Marc Alexander Lehmann - all rights reserved
Reply-To:	pgcc AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	pgcc AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 08:34:08AM +0200, Michael Hanke <hanke AT nada DOT kth DOT se> wrote:
> applications on an Athlon, too. I made some tests with egcs-1.1.2 and
> pgcc-2.95.3. It turned out that (besides other switches) -march=486 on egcs
> gave best performance. So my questions are: Which switches do you use for this

One of the major problems with pgcc (and to a less extent also gcc) is that
most problems are very very reactive to the compiler switches used. With pgcc
this was a major problem in the past, but gcc now also has this problem.

If you want maximum performance you have to experiment. For some problems,
gcc-2.7.2 performs better than 2.95.2 for example, although in general the
latter performs much better than the former.

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

- Raw text -