Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 10:47:40 +0200 (EET) From: Erhan Bilgili To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: pgcc 2.95.1 vs pgcc 1.1.1 (1.1.1 wins !!!) In-Reply-To: <381B834C.A7D0A99B@netfall.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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 > severe dive, but the integer/logic performance is up. The latter > accounts for 95% of generated code, I will go out on a limb and claim, > but still the large drop in floating point performance is a bummer. > This on a P2-333 system. I used the Byte-benchmark, the source code for hello, i just tested the experimental gcc2.96 and it was impressing! seems to outperform old 2.95.1(gcc) by 15-20%. when compared with the pgcc , it was just cpu dependent . 2.96 outperformed pgcc on an amd k6/2 just only in fpu performace and on a pII in both the integer and floating point . to be truth i didnot do much benchmarking but these were the results i got from bytes bm routines. and last note : 2.96 seems a bit of unstable for now - why it is experimental- but xfree86 servers just compiled well with it. marc ,will we have pgcc-2.96 snaps in near future ? Erhan Bilgili > which is commonly available on the net. > BTW, I have the exact same experience with bladeenc as below, but on my > P6-cored P2-333. Can't use unroll-loops. I've removed it from my > global config.cache and several problems cleared up in other programs. >