egcs 1.0 *faster* than Sun's C compiler!!!!

[Marcus Thiessel]

>>>>> "Harvey" == Harvey J Stein <hjstein@bfr.co.il> writes:

    Harvey> Marcus Thiessel <thiessel@itwm.uni-kl.de> writes:
    >> 
    >> Well, SUNPro should be faster since you've pay for it.

    Harvey> I didn't notice any smiley there.  If that's your belief,
    Harvey> why are you even reading the egcs mailing list?  Although
    Harvey> in my lifetime I've often noticed a loose correlation
    Harvey> between price and value, I've also noticed that it's only
    Harvey> a correlation - not a physical law.

Well, maybe the smiley got lost here! :-) But indeed (I wish to)
believe commercial compilers should produce faster code! I know this
is not always true ...

    Harvey> Then maybe you'd like to look at the man pages in
    Harvey> question.  I'm not "limiting the instruction set".  I'm
    Harvey> telling the compiler to use all features available on the
    Harvey> v8plusa, and not to try to produce a binary that'll run a
    Harvey> larger family of CPUs.  Since the machine in question is a
    Harvey> v8plusa, this produces better code.  RTFM.  In any case,
    Harvey> these are the options that *Sun* told me to use.  Good
    Harvey> enough for you?

Good for me? I did recognize you did that for me? :-) BTW, have you
ever tried SPEC97 switches!?


    Harvey> Time consuming isn't the word for it.  With 20 switches
    Harvey> that can be set independently, you'd be talking about
    Harvey> 1,048,576 tests.  At 40 seconds a run (and 10 minutes to
    Harvey> build the application), that'd take about 13 years, at
    Harvey> which point faster hardware and better compilers would be
    Harvey> available.  Hopeless is more the word for it.

Some of these switches are of type mutex and some don't make sense. So 
it is not neccessary to iterate over the complete set. :-)

--Marcus