Sender: root AT squid DOT netplus DOT net Message-ID: <37C39977.647AD260@netplus.net> Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 02:21:27 -0500 From: Steve Bergman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.5-15 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: Is "pgcc -O2 -m486" equivalent to "egcs -O2 -m486" in compile speed? References: <37C1C15D DOT BF6C1A AT netplus DOT net> <19990824214057 DOT D5486 AT cerebro DOT laendle> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com Marc Lehmann wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 23, 1999 at 04:47:09PM -0500, Steve Bergman wrote: > No, but pgcc -O2 should be _very_ close in compile speed to egcs -O2, > likewise -O. Without optimization they both should be equally and very > fast. > Hi, Thanks for the reply. I did grab egcs 2.91.66 (The redhat build) and compared against pgcc 2.91.66 (The mandrake build) with "make modules" for my 2.2.11 kernel. I compared egcs with standard options (-O2 -m486, etc) to pgcc with the same options and pgcc with the mandrake options: -O2 -mcpu=pentium -march=pentium -ffast-math -fno-rtti -fno-exceptions -fexpensive optimizations. I was surprised and pleased to find that pgcc does quite well in all cases. It is only about 4% slower with the vanilla options. And only 7% slower (than egcs and vanilla options) when using the mandrake options. i.e. fairly trivial. I thought that there would be more of a difference. I'm also glad to hear that -O2 is pretty conservative. Although I am excited about pgcc, (It's irritating to see MSVC performing so well ;-) I have always felt that when something goes wrong, and even if it is not pgcc's fault, that it's another possibility to be ruled out. To be honest, I have never tracked a problem down to pgcc. There have been a couple of things that went "unresolved" but everything I have been able to track down has been caused something else entirely. -Thanks, -Steve Bergman