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 4.6 performance regressions

From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
To: Tony Poppleton <tony dot poppleton at gmail dot com>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 08:25:43 +0000
Subject: Re: GCC 4.6 performance regressions
References: <AANLkTi=KvNqTtrYLJs6GARhKxytwKVWV6HO-zx_Doxj4@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=jmnSvMdv-7pMaoSCsBATfEHWwAyeYOFjNFA08@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinHVhUhTewzsz6Jcv8bgp_iFr8ShLZjQ2PPr3UD@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=avf5Cu_AMmJkpkt5k3eDucXk+t42sP8otD+Ow@mail.gmail.com> <buolj1pde2x.fsf@dhlpc061.dev.necel.com> <AANLkTi=c5wLxcDwnZQStSG0W=562L5xc5ORPs-gjU6zO@mail.gmail.com>

On 9 February 2011 06:20, Tony Poppleton wrote:
>
> Out of interest, has their been much communication in the past between
> GCC and Phoronix to address any of these issues in their previous
> benchmarks?

I signed up to their forum to point out that snapshots have additional
checking turned on by default, but didn't see anyone "official"
replying to acknowledge it, only other forums users.  I wasn't
interested in spending any time trying to reach them.

References:
- GCC 4.6 performance regressions
  - From: Tony Poppleton
- Re: GCC 4.6 performance regressions
  - From: Xinliang David Li
- Re: GCC 4.6 performance regressions
  - From: Sebastian Pop
- Re: GCC 4.6 performance regressions
  - From: Jonathan Wakely
- Re: GCC 4.6 performance regressions
  - From: Miles Bader
- Re: GCC 4.6 performance regressions
  - From: Tony Poppleton

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