Date:	Thu, 29 Apr 1999 01:49:44 +0200
To:	pgcc AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: pgcc... Do I really got it ?
Message-ID:	<19990429014944.I18899@cerebro.laendle>
Mail-Followup-To:	pgcc AT delorie DOT com
References:	<19990428201537 DOT A27287 AT win DOT tue DOT nl> <Pine DOT LNX DOT 4 DOT 10 DOT 9904281936460 DOT 16107-100000 AT billabong DOT demon DOT co DOT uk> <19990428223259 DOT B28723 AT win DOT tue DOT nl>
Mime-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<19990428223259.B28723@win.tue.nl>; from Ronald de Man on Wed, Apr 28, 1999 at 10:32:59PM +0200
X-Operating-System:	Linux version 2.2.6 (root AT cerebro) (gcc driver version pgcc-2.93.09 19990221 (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

On Wed, Apr 28, 1999 at 10:32:59PM +0200, Ronald de Man wrote:
> 
> This works for gcc (and gives output similar to `gcc -v`).
> I think the question was how to recognize that an arbitrary
> binary has been compiled with pentium optimizations. I know
> of no way to determine this.

Benchmark it against a known non-optimized version ;-> (sorry, I couldn't
resist).

Judging from the original mail, I think the binary was indeed pentium
optimized. Possible sources of errors include:

- not _really_ using pgcc to compile the binary.
- pgcc didn't optimize at all
- wrong testing methodology

However, its very very rare that a pgcc-optimized cpu-intensive program
shows _exactly_ the same execution time as a gcc-optimized.

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

- Raw text -