Speed issues taken seriously?

[Andreas Jaeger]

larsbj@gullik.net (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes:

> larsbj@gullik.net (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes:
>
> | Andreas Jaeger <aj@suse.de> writes:
>>
> | | larsbj@gullik.net (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes:
>>>
>>>> I just thought that I'd see how gcc 3.3.2 (CVS) and 3.4(CVS) compared,
>>>> I was hoping (expecting) the recent months long threads on compile
>>>> performance to have had an effect... the result was a bit
>>>> disappointing...
>>>
> | | How did you configure GCC exactly?  Please use --disable-checking so
> | | that the checking code is disabled, it causes some run-time overhead.
>>
> | I'll redo my tests with this.
>
> Test redone.
>
> g++ (GCC) 3.4 20031010 (experimental)
>
> real    24m20.049s
> user    22m17.930s
> sys     1m45.420s

This gives a degradion of 13 per cent in realtime compared with your
earlier results of:

G++ 3.3:
gcc (GCC) 3.3.2 20030923 (prerelease)
real    21m23.975s
user    19m25.020s
sys     1m44.680s

Thanks,
Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj
  SuSE Linux AG, Deutschherrnstr. 15-19, 90429 Nürnberg, Germany
   GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F  FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/attachments/20031010/71238517/attachment.sig>