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

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

Re: gcc 3.0 produces worser code on Ultrasparc

To: Bernd Schmidt <bernds at redhat dot com>
Subject: Re: gcc 3.0 produces worser code on Ultrasparc
From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 21:01:07 +0200
Cc: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>, Heiko Wengler <wengler at do dot isst dot fhg dot de>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
References: <orbsn38it0.fsf@guarana.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> <Pine.LNX.4.33.0107021934080.8733-100000@host140.cambridge.redhat.com>
Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>

On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 07:34:26PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 2 Jul 2001, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >
> > Just like GCC 2.95.3, GCC 3.0 doesn't fully support -mcpu=ultrasparc,
> > so all bets are off.
> 
> What are the problems?

I'm not aware of any (what is not fully supported is -m64, not -mcpu=ultrasparc).
It would be interesting to know what "worse" means (by 1%, 10%, more?), on
what kind of code and if possible some sample code which shows that up.

	Jakub

Follow-Ups:
- Re: gcc 3.0 produces worser code on Ultrasparc
  - From: Alexandre Oliva

References:
- Re: gcc 3.0 produces worser code on Ultrasparc
  - From: Alexandre Oliva
- Re: gcc 3.0 produces worser code on Ultrasparc
  - From: Bernd Schmidt

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