X-pop3-spooler: POP3MAIL 2.1.0 b 4 980420 -bs- X-Authentication-Warning: basis.Desk.nl: listserv set sender to owner-beastium-list AT basis DOT desk DOT nl using -f Message-ID: <19981122214624.C8362@cerebro.laendle> Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 21:46:24 +0100 From: Marc Lehmann To: Jonathan Mark Brooks , Michael Kunze Cc: beastium-list AT desk DOT nl Subject: Re: gzip SLOWER with pgcc 1.1? Mail-Followup-To: Jonathan Mark Brooks , Michael Kunze , beastium-list AT desk DOT nl References: <365822D3 DOT D2589178 AT ivw DOT de> <36583004 DOT EBC1AE13 AT bigfoot DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <36583004.EBC1AE13@bigfoot.com>; from Jonathan Mark Brooks on Sun, Nov 22, 1998 at 10:38:44AM -0500 X-Operating-System: Linux version 2.1.129 (root AT cerebro) (gcc version pgcc-2.92.21 19981109 (gcc2 ss-980609 experimental)) Status: RO Content-Length: 1213 Lines: 25 On Sun, Nov 22, 1998 at 10:38:44AM -0500, Jonathan Mark Brooks wrote: > Mind you, this is for c++ source code. There is no -O6 for c source > that I'm aware of. My impression was that the max was -O3 for c > source. No, for pgcc, -O6 is better than -O3 with any language. Even with stock gcc or egcs, everything higher than -O3 is treated as if it were -O3. > Would having -O6 to compile c source have the effect of turning off > optimization since there isn't an -O6 level? Could this be Michael's > problem? No. What machine does he use? Also, gzip optionally can use x86 assembly code that comes with it, and turning it off (or on) often makes a difference. The question is how suse have compiled their binary, and unless you know this, speed comparisons are not feasible. -----==- | ----==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg AT goof DOT com |e| -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |