From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-14) on finch.gentoo.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=DMARC_NONE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 Received: from horkos.telenet-ops.be (horkos.telenet-ops.be [195.130.132.45]) by chiba.3jane.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCD912000156 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 2002 18:24:36 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by horkos.telenet-ops.be (Postfix) with SMTP id 52D4983E36 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 00:24:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from Gentoo (D5E008AB.kabel.telenet.be [213.224.8.171]) by horkos.telenet-ops.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3173283E2E for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 00:24:36 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Bart Verwilst To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] gcc 2.95.3 / 3.0.4 speed comparsion Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 01:24:39 +0200 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.4] References: <20020408005446.73cc3c69.spider@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20020408005446.73cc3c69.spider@gentoo.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <200204080124.39239.verwilst@gentoo.org> Sender: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org Errors-To: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org X-Reply-To: verwilst@gentoo.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Gentoo Linux developer list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: X-Archives-Salt: 87d8c296-ed48-42ab-bc2b-6d4a62f1b376 X-Archives-Hash: cd0d5a56eaa422e77bfa0c669706c928 Oh, and euhm.. What about this?:=20 http://gcc.gnu.org/faq.html#optimizing If gcc itself is optimised with for example '-O3 -fomit-frame-pointer', won't that make it faster than gcc 2.95.3? :o) Just taking wild guesses here :o) See ya On Monday 08 April 2002 00:54, Spider wrote: || Hello, I've just upgraded my -rc6 to -1.0-gcc3 and decided to make an || (unofficial) benchmark. || || I went for galeon, I had originally intended to use mozilla, but the || time-results borked so I go for galeon instead.. smaller codebase, so || its not as great difference, but it does have both c and c++ code, so = it || might be a decent choice. || || || gcc 2.95.3 : || real 3m38.592s || user 2m46.810s || sys 0m28.100s || CFLAGS=3D"-march=3Di686 -O3 -pipe" || CXXFLAGS=3D"-march=3Di686 -O3 -pipe" || || || gcc 3.0.4 : || real 5m6.465s || user 3m27.440s || sys 0m30.140s || CFLAGS=3D"-march=3Dathlon -O3 -pipe" || CXXFLAGS=3D"-march=3Dathlon -O3 -pipe" || || || || || if you only compare the "user" time it should be enough... as the "sys= " || show, there's a few percentages difference between them, so this is no= t || scientific or anything. || || Would be interesting to compare the results as well, since those are || quite likely rather different with the new levels of optimization... || || || //Spider --=20 Bart Verwilst Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team Gent, Belgium