tests:
gcc-Version 3.4.4 20041218 (prerelease) (Debian 3.4.3-6)
user0m57.250s
sys 0m1.050s
gcc-Version 4.0.0 20041218 (experimental)
user1m53.810s
sys 0m2.850s
gcc-Version 4.0.0 20050402 (prerelease)
user0m40.290s
sys 0m1.070s
impressing. thank you very much to whoever fixed
Snapshot gcc-4.0-20050402 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.0-20050402/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.0 CVS branch
with the following options: -rgcc-ss-4_0-20050402
You'll
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 06:10:29PM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> On Apr 2, 2005, at 6:12 PM, Stefan Strasser wrote:
>
> >gcc-Version 4.0.0 20041218 (experimental)
> >
>
> this 4.0.0 is almost 4 months old.
> That is not a far comparison as there was speedups after that
> and other bug fixes.
On Apr 2, 2005, at 6:12 PM, Stefan Strasser wrote:
gcc-Version 4.0.0 20041218 (experimental)
this 4.0.0 is almost 4 months old.
That is not a far comparison as there was speedups after that
and other bug fixes.
-- Pinski
Kaveh R. Ghazi schrieb:
I'm curious what the 3.3 numbers are,
3.3 => 4.0 is a small improvement cpu-wise(not mem-wise).
3.4 is much better than both:
gcc-Version 3.3.5 (Debian 1:3.3.5-8)
mem 426 mb
user2m10.870s
sys 0m2.250s
gcc-Version 3.4.4 20041218 (prerelease) (Debian 3.4.3-6)
mem
Shaun Jackman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Can the GCC "C Extension" of "Generalized Lvalues" be enabled with a
| switch in gcc-4.0?
It is gone forever.
-- Gaby
On Apr 2, 2005, at 4:57 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Apr 2, 2005, at 4:53 PM, Shaun Jackman wrote:
Can the GCC "C Extension" of "Generalized Lvalues" be enabled with a
switch in gcc-4.0?
No.
Note a better fix for the bug would be:
#definememUHeapSize(p,ver) \
*(ver>2 ? &
On Apr 2, 2005, at 4:53 PM, Shaun Jackman wrote:
Can the GCC "C Extension" of "Generalized Lvalues" be enabled with a
switch in gcc-4.0?
No.
Cheers,
Shaun
On Mar 22, 2005 12:29 PM, Andreas Jochens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Package: romeo
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
When building 'romeo' on amd64
Can the GCC "C Extension" of "Generalized Lvalues" be enabled with a
switch in gcc-4.0?
Cheers,
Shaun
On Mar 22, 2005 12:29 PM, Andreas Jochens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Package: romeo
> Severity: normal
> Tags: patch
>
> When building 'romeo' on amd64 with gcc-4.0,
> I get the following erro
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 08:29:48PM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Joe Buck wrote:
> > Unfortunately, where there is a good argument for not using empty loops
> > as busy-waits, at one time it was documented GCC behavior that it would
> > work, so we can't really blame the users
On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Joe Buck wrote:
> Unfortunately, where there is a good argument for not using empty loops
> as busy-waits, at one time it was documented GCC behavior that it would
> work, so we can't really blame the users for trusting the doc.
However, it's really a looong time since we clari
On Saturday 02 April 2005 20:22, Rajkishore Barik wrote:
> Hi,
> I am trying to compile MEDIABENCH (@UCLA) using the latest GCC CVS
> checkout. I get
> the following errors when I compile with "-O3 -fprofile-generate". I just
> want to make sure
> that this is not a silly mistake before I file a b
Hi,
I am trying to compile MEDIABENCH (@UCLA) using the latest GCC CVS
checkout. I get
the following errors when I compile with "-O3 -fprofile-generate". I just
want to make sure
that this is not a silly mistake before I file a bug report. Can someone
help? Almost 9 out of 11
benchmarks throw
Mike Stump wrote:
> Swapping, what's that? Here's $20, go buy a gigabyte.
I hope that was not meant to be taken literally, or perhaps memory
really is that cheap where you live.
Apple charge me 19x-33x that amount, depending on model. Plus shipping.
On topic: Even if memory were cheap (which it
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 10:40:35AM -0600, Larry Evans wrote:
> I briefly looked at:
>
> Type-Information.html
>
> from:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint-html.tar.gz
>
> I was wondering why the method described here:
>
> http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Hans_Boehm/gc/gc_source/gc_ty
On 04/01/2005 11:23 AM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
[snip]
There are other ways to solve this problem, including creating a
generational collector using our existing accurate GC. I've been
working on this on-and-off (mostly off at the moment, though).
I briefly looked at:
Type-Information.html
from
> mem peak user sys
>
>
> gcc 3.4 -S -O0 476 MB1m39s 2s
> gcc 4.0 -S -O0 655 MB2m23s 3s
>
> icc -S -O0 264 MB 1m24s 15s
>
>
> the file makes quite heavy use of virtual inheritance so there are a
> lot of virtual tables involved. are there any known performance bugs
>> if gcc uses more memory than physically available it spends a
>> _very_ long time swapping
>
> Swapping, what's that? Here's $20, go buy a gigabyte.
You don't know whay swapping is? Shifting memory over from physical RAM
to the hard drive when not in use, and putting it back in RAM when in
>> if gcc uses more memory than physically available it spends a
>> _very_ long time swapping
>
> Swapping, what's that? Here's $20, go buy a gigabyte.
You don't know whay swapping is? Shifting memory over from physical RAM
to the hard drive when not in use, and putting it back in RAM when in
>> if gcc uses more memory than physically available it spends a
>> _very_ long time swapping
>
> Swapping, what's that? Here's $20, go buy a gigabyte.
You don't know whay swapping is? Shifting memory over from physical RAM
to the hard drive when not in use, and putting it back in RAM when in
On Saturday 02 April 2005 15:18, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> -O2 compile does inline copying, however, suboptimally.
> Pushing/popping esi/edi on the stack is not needed.
> Also "mov $1,ecx; rep; movsl" is rather silly.
I think I am wrong about push/pop. Sorry.
However, other observation is still val
> > childregs = ((struct pt_regs *) (THREAD_SIZE + (unsigned long)
> > p->thread_info)) - 1;
> > *childregs = *regs;
> > ^^^
> > childregs->eax = 0;
> > childregs->esp = esp;
> >
> > # make arch/i386/kernel/process.s
> >
> > copy_thread:
>
Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 01:10:42AM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:
| > >Memory bloat is a problem for embedded systems. Attitudes about just
| > >"buy
| > >another gigabyte" is why i use C for everything for speed, portability,
| > >compactness, and conciseness
Kaveh R. Ghazi schrieb:
> I do have swapping on a 1 GB machine with 2 CPUs(-> 2 GCCs)
If you can demonstrate that say GCC-4.0 uses much more memory than 3.4
or 3.3 to compile some code, then file a PR with preprocessed source
and someone will eventually look at it.
I haven't thought about a regres
24 matches
Mail list logo
