Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 21:07:17 +0100
To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Branch probabilities
Message-ID: <19990307210717.A333@cerebro.laendle>
Mail-Followup-To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com
References: <36DDC508 DOT ED50D413 AT lycosmail DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <36DDC508.ED50D413@lycosmail.com>; from Adam Schrotenboer on Wed, Mar 03, 1999 at 06:26:00PM -0500
X-Operating-System: Linux version 2.2.2 (marc AT cerebro) (gcc driver version pgcc-2.93.04 19990131 (gcc2 ss-980929 experimental) 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
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 03, 1999 at 06:26:00PM -0500, Adam Schrotenboer wrote:
> 
> Is branch probabilities actually supposed to work, or is it too highly
> experimental?

It is actually supposed to work (its basically there since 1990), but I
haven't tried it lately. Currently, profiling seems to be broken with pgcc,
and I haven't had time to fix it (exception handling was more important ;)

> Rather long, you may wish to not read:

Is egcs showing the same buggy behaviour? In that case you might consider
writing to egcs-bugs AT egcs DOT cygnus DOT com, as people reading that list assume
that submitters are not subscribed.

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