This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: i386 backend
- To: "David Rasmussen" <pinkfloydhomer at yahoo dot com>, "Neil Booth" <neil at daikokuya dot demon dot co dot uk>
- Subject: Re: i386 backend
- From: "Tim Prince" <tprince at computer dot org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 06:06:15 -0800
- Cc: <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- References: <ELECLDHLONNAHNIBCAEIKEPGCBAA.pinkfloydhomer@yahoo.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Rasmussen" <pinkfloydhomer@yahoo.com>
To: "Neil Booth" <neil@daikokuya.demon.co.uk>
Cc: <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 11:51 PM
Subject: RE: i386 backend
> If you want an instance where the difference is pronounced, compile
Crafty,
> which I have posted a link to before. You will see that Crafty is
> significantly slower on gcc. If that isn't a testcase, I don't know
what is.
Crafty is well enough known that it is the object of specific
optimizations in commercial compilers. gcc tends not to have so much
specific tuning to benchmarks known to marketing. Did you try all the
versions of gcc available to you, profile with all feasible choices of
options, and pick the best for each section?