Torsten Rohlfing writes: > Andrew Haley wrote: > > > > When I run the two binaries on the exact same box and time them, I get > > > the following outputs: > > > > > > time ./testlog64 > > > 13.264u 0.000s 0:13.26 100.0% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w > > > > > > time ./testlog32 > > > 6.960u 0.004s 0:06.96 100.0% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w > > > >You have weird hardware. > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ time ./testlog64 > > > >real 0m7.330s > >user 0m7.328s > >sys 0m0.004s > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ time ./testlog32 > > > >real 0m7.538s > >user 0m7.528s > >sys 0m0.000s > > So it's not a big brand box, but I didn't think of it as totally obscure > either.
Mm yes, but the fact that I can't duplicate your problem suggests that it might be localized to a particular CPU design of a perticular library build. It's hard to be sure, but it's not a generic gcc problem. Andrew.
