From: pavenis AT lanet DOT lv Message-ID: To: pavenis AT lanet DOT lv, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:56:15 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: gcc-2.95.1 In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12a) Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On 2 Sep 99, at 12:48, pavenis AT lanet DOT lv wrote: > Hi! > > Did some benchmarking of gcc-2.95.1 configured both with and > without --haifa-enable on 4 diffent CPUs: > > - i486 DX266 - no evident difference between 2 compilers (with > and without --enable-haifa) > - Pentium 200MMX - the same > - K6-2 300 - HAIFA enabled compiler generates about 20% faster > code for -O0 and -O2. For -O3 difference is smaller or > is absent in some conditions Seems that I was wrong about K6-2 300. Perhaps these results are not reliable as something else has been started at middle of benchmarking when I left all this at night. So we don't have reliable difference in efficiency of generated code up to this time. > - Pentium 2 350MHz - no evident difference > > So it remains unclear whether I should use --enable-haifa for binaries > I'll upload to ftp.delorie.com As result perhaps it's best to avoid using --enable-haifa (it's default) Andris