This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: 3.0 vs 3.0.1 on oopack's Max
- To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: 3.0 vs 3.0.1 on oopack's Max
- From: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at rocketmail dot com>
- Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 02:15:53 -0700 (PDT)
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Hi and thank you very much for your feedback!
--- Richard Henderson <email@example.com> wrote:
> You didn't mention how the compiler was configured,
> or what options you gave for compilation.
Well, I did mention that the options were:
The compilers were built with a trivial:
> The performance regression is caused by
> > 8048912: 31 d2 xor %edx,%edx
> > 8048919: 0f 97 c2 seta %dl
> > 804891c: 85 d2 test %edx,%edx
> > 8048917: 0f 97 c0 seta %al
> > 804891a: 83 e0 01 and $0x1,%eax
> The 3.0.1 version has a partial register stall on
Thanks for your analysis! I'm really puzzled by the
fact that (of course!) only very safe patches went in
in the branch between 3.0.0 and 3.0.1.
Is there something else I can do for you, RTL dumps or
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger