Results for g++ 3.4.0 application testing on i686-pc-linux-gnu

Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com
Wed Mar 17 06:05:00 GMT 2004


poschmid@lbl.gov wrote:

>I ran many tests on my i686-pc-linux-gnu computer, the CPU is
>a Pentium IV with a 1.8 GHz clock. 
>  
>
Thanks for doing these tests.

>I tested the following applications: Blitz++-0.7, FTensor-1.1pre25,
>STLport-4.6.1, STLport-5.0-0409, qt-x11-free-3.3.0, root_v3.05.01,
>root_v3.10.02, root_v4.00.02, cln-1.1.5, ACE-5.4+TAO-1.4+CIAO-0.4, stepanov,
>oopack, mtl-2.1.2-21, estl, bench++, boost, the code examples that are
>included in the books by Breymann, Josuttis and Vandevoorde and other 
>applications.
>
>After applying some patches of my own, the remaining problems are:
>
>1)qt-x11-free-3.3.0 does not build (see PR 14400). This problem can be worked
>around by configuring with -system-zlib -system-libpng enabled. Although the
>build completes when configured this way, many applications crash on shutdown
>with a segmentation fault.
>  
>
Hmm.  That's an interesting PR.  I've retargeted it for 3.4.0.  I 
suspect that there is a bug in the PCH implementation, but it's hard to 
say until we can reproduce it more effectively.

>3) There are 10 failures while running the current boost regression test
>suite. All of them might be regressions since gcc 3.3 accepts the code which
>is rejected by gcc 3.4.  4) Some test examples of ACE and TAO fail.  
>5) Because of recent changes in libstdc++, current root snapshots no longer
>compile. root_v3.10.02 is the last release which can be build successfully.
>  
>
Until/unless you (or someone else!) does the analysis to figure out why 
these tests are failing it's hard to say what these problems mean.  The 
changes to G++ and V3 will undoubtedly make the compiler much stricter.

>6) The complex oop test included in oopack runs considerably slower when
>compiled by gcc 3.4. It is 55.9 Mflops for gcc 3.3 but 40.7 Mflops for gcc
>3.4. Additionally, there is still a substantial penalty for using oop methods
>in contrast to c based ones (720 vs 40 Mflops).
>  
>
I'll be taking a look at some of these problems over the next few days.

Thanks,

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
(916) 791-8304
mark@codesourcery.com



More information about the Libstdc++ mailing list