This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug c++/14563] octave built under Cygwin very slow
- From: "paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 13 Mar 2004 08:06:28 -0000
- Subject: [Bug c++/14563] octave built under Cygwin very slow
- References: <20040312233606.14563.paulthomas2@wanadoo.fr>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Additional Comments From paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2004-03-13 08:06 -------
Subject: Re: octave built under Cygwin very slow
I am not in a position to do so right now; the system that has Cygwin
loaded on it is at work - I am 100% linux at home. Unfortunately, I am
out of town next week, so cannot get back to this until a week Monday.
I have cc'd this to Ben Diedrich in the hope that he can help you.
An obvious question, is what form would you like the test cases in? The
output from octave benchmarks or the octave binaries? If it is the
former, you will be able to get started on the octave mailing list:
http://www.octave.org/mailing-lists/help-octave/2004/325
http://www.octave.org/mailing-lists/help-octave/2004/337
http://www.octave.org/mailing-lists/help-octave/2004/339 <---
contains configuration details
http://www.octave.org/mailing-lists/help-octave/2004/389 <--- ditto
If you want the binaries, that will take a little longer.... It might
be more practical, if you have the time, to build octave yourself. We
used octave-2.1.50 for our attempts to pin-point the problem because the
"good" binary from octave-forge used this version. However, 2.1.53 and
2.1.56 both were slow when built with gcc-3.3.3
Ben, did you keep the deffective binaries?
Paul Thomas
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-03-13 07:24 -------
>Can you provide a testcase where 3.3.3 is slower than 3.2.3?
>
>
>
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14563