Do we get the other 15% performance back too?

[Joe Buck]

> As a fan of the C++ gnu compiler project, I would like to congratulate the 
> gurus on the recent performance increase probably coming from corrections 
> in the prefetch routines. My benchmark shows
> 
> Processor/OS         Compiler/options             Time(sec)
> Pentium 4 1.7Ghz     pgCC -O3 -fast -Minline=3/4   8.27  
> Pentium 4 1.7Ghz     gnu g++ -O3 (2.95.2)          8.62  <-- fastest
> Pentium 4 1.7Ghz     Intel icpc 5.0 -O3            8.65  
> Pentium 4 1.7Ghz     gnu g++ -O3 (2.95.3)         10.94   
> Pentium 4 1.7Ghz     gnu g++ -O3 (3.2)            11.30  <-- new
> Pentium 4 1.7Ghz     gnu g++ -O3 (3.01)           15.09  <-- previous

You don't explain just what you are timing here.

I don't understand why you are getting such different results for 2.95.2
and 2.95.3, considering that there aren't really any differences to speak
of; the only job of the 2.95.2 -> 2.95.3 patch was to fix some breakage
having to do with compatibility with glibc 2.2, as well as to fix a couple
of minor bugs in a way that should not have had any effect on compiler
performance.

How did you produce these compilers?  Did you build them yourself, or
download them from somewhere?  If they are from .rpm's or .deb's, were
they built for 686 or 386?