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]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: gcc 3.1 is still very slow, compared to 2.95.3

From: Marc Espie <espie at nerim dot net>
To: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 19:06:24 +0200
Subject: Re: gcc 3.1 is still very slow, compared to 2.95.3
References: <20020517144258.A17881@tetto.liafa.jussieu.fr> <20020517162122.GA22447@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <20020517185048.A16019@tetto.liafa.jussieu.fr> <20020517170016.GK22447@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
Reply-to: espie at nerim dot net

On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 07:00:16PM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Another idea, is it possible for you to eassilly compare this on non-i386
> architecture?  The i386 backend has been redesigned and the memory overhead is
> now unfortunately considerably bigger, so getting 2.95 scores is dificult in
> this area.  i386 is not dead architecture and in 4 years since 2.95 the CPUs
> got significantly faster, so it may compensate the regression.

I don't believe memory is an issue there. The machine I've run these tests
on has 1GB of memory.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: gcc 3.1 is still very slow, compared to 2.95.3
  - From: David S. Miller

References:
- gcc 3.1 is still very slow, compared to 2.95.3
  - From: Marc Espie
- Re: gcc 3.1 is still very slow, compared to 2.95.3
  - From: Jan Hubicka
- Re: gcc 3.1 is still very slow, compared to 2.95.3
  - From: Marc Espie
- Re: gcc 3.1 is still very slow, compared to 2.95.3
  - From: Jan Hubicka

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