This is the mail archive of the java@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the Java project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Native compilation article

From: Andrew Haley <aph at cambridge dot redhat dot com>
To: Anthony Green <green at redhat dot com>
Cc: Bryce McKinlay <bryce at waitaki dot otago dot ac dot nz>,Nic Ferrier <nferrier at tapsellferrier dot co dot uk>, java at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 21:44:53 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: Native compilation article
References: <20020125081332.888.qmail@web20510.mail.yahoo.com><87sn8ua7ng.fsf@tf1.tapsellferrier.co.uk><3C51BB26.6050900@waitaki.otago.ac.nz><1011994797.1371.269.camel@dhcppc2>

Anthony Green writes:
 > On Fri, 2002-01-25 at 12:08, Bryce McKinlay wrote:
 > > They used GCC 3.0 for their testing. The current cvs GCJ beats IBM and 
 > > Sun on Scimark, and is in fact much faster if we cheat with 
 > > --no-bounds-check.
 > 
 > We should look at not including -ffloat-store in the specs file.  This
 > is a throw-back to the old fp rules (and it didn't even always work).

No it isn't.  There is numeric conversion code in the library that
absolutely depends on -ffloat-store.

Andrew.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Native compilation article
  - From: Anthony Green

References:
- Native compilation article
  - From: Joerg Brunsmann
- Re: Native compilation article
  - From: Nic Ferrier
- Re: Native compilation article
  - From: Bryce McKinlay
- Re: Native compilation article
  - From: Anthony Green

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]