Date:	Thu, 28 Sep 2000 19:06:28 +0200
From:	Marc Lehmann <pcg AT goof DOT com>
To:	pgcc AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: pgcc didn't perform for me
Message-ID:	<20000928190628.G18291@cerebro.laendle>
Mail-Followup-To:	pgcc AT delorie DOT com
References:	<Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 21 DOT 0009212159160 DOT 24859-100000 AT physun DOT physics DOT mcmaster DOT ca>
Mime-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.GSO.4.21.0009212159160.24859-100000@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca>; from wadsley@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca on Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 10:18:24PM -0400
X-Operating-System:	Linux version 2.2.17 (root AT cerebro) (gcc version pgcc-2.95.2 19991024 (release))
X-Copyright:	copyright 2000 Marc Alexander Lehmann - all rights reserved
Reply-To:	pgcc AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	pgcc AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 10:18:24PM -0400, James Wadsley <wadsley AT physun DOT physics DOT mcmaster DOT ca> wrote:
> I have a high performance tree-code for astrophysical problems and I was
> running on an AMD-K7 900 MHz.

Well, that's not a pentium.

> After my tests I'm not going to simply take your word for
> it that there is an advantage to pgcc.

I never gave my word for the amd-k7, esp. since I have no way to test it
since I do not own such a chip ;)

> Sorry,

No problem. pgcc performs best with pentii, and since a lot of
optimizations fortunately went into 2.95.2 pgcc becomes increasingly
obsolete ;)

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

- Raw text -