Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 15:55:29 +1300 From: Danny Smith Subject: Re: Need an older gcc version on my cygwin due to poor performance on gcc-3.x series. To: "Gerrit P. Haase" , Danny Smith Cc: Cygwin , waterthrill@yahoo.no Reply-to: Danny Smith Message-id: <000801c4bfbe$40351a90$3a4861cb@DANNY> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: <000701c4bf79$fe5d1e40$316d65da@DANNY> <4185480F.3080807@familiehaase.de> Gerrit P. Haase wrote: > Danny Smith wrote: > >> Gerrit wrote: >> >> >>> Ole Jacob Hagen wrote: >> >> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I've compiled Octave-2.1.60 with gcc-3.3.3 successfully, but the >>>> performance is pretty bad with gcc-3.3.3. >>>> The performance should of Octave is much better, when compiling it >>>> with gcc-3.2.x instead. >> >> >>> It would make more sense to identify the problem and do s.th. >>> about it to resolve this issue then. >> >> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14563 > > Wow, this is an interesting story about exception handling. > > What I'm asking myself now: > > Should we try again to use dwarf2 exceptions? > My personal builds of gcc-3.4.x are bullt with dwarf2 EH enabled. No problems But I don't use w32 callbacks within functions that throw. I had never even thought of doing that, but I don't think much.anymore > Should we try to find the reason why SjLj exceptions are slower on > Cygwin than for the rest of the world? > Most of the rest of the GCC world has abandoned sjlj EH as inefficient Look within function prologues. Danny > > Gerrit -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/