> Jan Hubicka wrote: >>> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010, it was written: >>> There sure is something in 4.5. I've seen a 1-10% slowdown at the GiNaC >>> (a computer algebra library) benchmark suite after switching from 4.4 to >>> 4.5 on x86_64 when compiling with -O2. And there hasn't been a measurable >>> performance differences between 4.3 and 4.4. >> >> FP intensive code could be also affected by: > > This code isn't using floating-point.
Hmm, building ginac with current 4.5 branch I get: /bin/sh ../libtool --tag=CXX --mode=compile /abuild/jh/gcc-4.5-nopatch/bin/g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../../ginac -I../config -I/usr/local/include -g -O2 -MT function.lo -MD -MP -MF .deps/function.Tpo -c -o function.lo ../../ginac/function.cpp libtool: compile: /abuild/jh/gcc-4.5-nopatch/bin/g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../../ginac -I../config -I/usr/local/include -g -O2 -MT function.lo -MD -MP -MF .deps/function.Tpo -c ../../ginac/function.cpp -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/function.o ../../ginac/function.cpp: In member function âGiNaC::ex GiNaC::function::power(const GiNaC::ex&) constâ: ../../ginac/function.cpp:1800:15: error: expected type-specifier ../../ginac/function.cpp:1800:15: error: expected â)â ../../ginac/function.cpp:1801:72: error: conversion from âint*â to âGiNaC::exâ is ambiguous ../../ginac/ex.h:279:1: note: candidates are: GiNaC::ex::ex(long unsigned int) <near match> ../../ginac/ex.h:273:1: note: GiNaC::ex::ex(long int) <near match> ../../ginac/ex.h:267:1: note: GiNaC::ex::ex(unsigned int) <near match> ../../ginac/ex.h:261:1: note: GiNaC::ex::ex(int) <near match> Honza > > -richy. > -- > Richard B. Kreckel > <http://www.ginac.de/~kreckel/>
