Hi Oleg,
I had some performance degradation with 4.6 as well.
However, I was able to cure it by using -finline-limit=800 or 1000 I
think. However, this lead to a code size increase. Were the old
higher-performance binaries larger?
IIRC, setting finline-limit=n actually sets two params to n
On 04/10/2011 05:43 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 1:04 AM, Benjamin Redelings I
wrote:
Hi,
I just tried compiling with LTO for the first time. I can't figure out
what to try based on the error message below. Is there a HTML page I should
be looking at?
It
Hi,
I just tried compiling with LTO for the first time. I can't figure
out what to try based on the error message below. Is there a HTML page
I should be looking at?
It seems that this did not work:
g++-4.6 -isystem ../../../master/boost/include -ffast-math -DNDEBUG
-DNDEBUG_DP -funr
Hi,
I have a C++ numerical code which runs about 40% slower which
compiled with 4.6 than with 4.5. I plan to submit a bug report later --
reducing the bug to a test case will take a while and I can't start yet.
Can anyone tell me if the 4.6 svn manpage is currently up-to-date
in desc
On 01/01/2010 09:51 PM, Tim Prince wrote:
Benjamin Redelings I wrote:
Hi,
I have been playing with the GCC vectorizer and examining assembly
code that is produced for dot products that are not for a fixed number
of elements. (This comes up surprisingly often in scientific codes.)
So far, the
Thanks for the information!
How many people would take advantage of special machinery for some old
CPU, if that's your goal?
Some, but I suppose the old machinery will be gone eventually. But,
yes, I am most interested in current processors.
On CPUs introduced in the last 2 years, movupd
Hi,
I have been playing with the GCC vectorizer and examining assembly code
that is produced for dot products that are not for a fixed number of
elements. (This comes up surprisingly often in scientific codes.) So
far, the generated code is not faster than non-vectorized code, and I
think t
Hi,
It seems that many current uses of list::merge( ) fail to compile
with -std=c++0x, but I don't see a bug in bugzilla for this. Itseems to
result from:
list<_Tp, _Alloc>::
#ifdef __GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX0X__
merge(list&& __x)
#else
merge(list& __x)
#endif
For c++0x, don't we need BOTH vers
Hi,
I have noticed that, when I link my code statically, valgrind complains
about every exception that is caught. In the example code below, the
error is:
==32195== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)
==32195==at 0x44B8A4: __cxa_begin_catch (in
/home/bredelings/Dev
But right now what is given in the bug report is hard to reproduce as there is
no source
Right. I added a short snippet that reproduces the problem.
-BenRI
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Benjamin Redelings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
substitution.o:(.data+0x0): multiple definition of
`_ZN5boost7numeric5ublas21scalar_divides_assignIT_T0_E8computedE'
I can't make sense of that as a mangled name. It has template
parameter r
Hi,
I have some software that uses the BOOST matrix library UBLAS (1.33.1).
With GCC 4.1.1 this software compile fine (Debian Linux system - GNU
ld). However, with GCC 4.2 I get lots of errors, but I am not sure if
this is a bug or not:
substitution.o:(.data+0x0): multiple definition of
`
Hi,
Recently I've been getting strange errors on ill-formed code. It looks
as if the compiler is not stopping after an error, but running the
assembler anyway:
dp-matrix.H:110: error: extra qualification 'DPmatrix::' on member
'DPmatrix' ignored
dp-matrix.H:132: error: extra qualificatio
Hi guys,
Just wanted to note that I'm getting a bootstrap failure in varasm.c.
gcc -c -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes
-Wmissing-prototypes -fno-common -DHAVE_CONFIG_H-I. -I.
-I../../gcc/gcc -I../../gcc/gcc/. -I../../gcc/gcc/../include
-I../../gcc/gc
This patch fixes a g++ ICE for me that depends on inlining limits. (I
have Richard's short patch to modify estimate_num_insns installed)
The file contains lots of virtual public inheritance and covariant
returns. I don't know if this patch fixes though, or just hides it,
since changing the in
Hello,
I would be interested in testing patches that you produce. It seems
that inlining heuristics have quite a large effect on my code, compared
to other codes.
As an aside, do you (or anyone) know what kind of compile-time speedup
can be gained by boostrapping with more extreme options?
Hello,
I tested out Richard Guenther's inlining patch on a numerical C++ code
that I have developed. The patch is included and described here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-02/msg01571.html
The C++ code that I am timing (especially the first two examples)
heavily uses uBLAS, a C++ mat
Hello,
Regarding the testcase I mentioned before, I have been checking out the
Intel compiler to see if it would generate better code. Interestingly
enough, it displays EXACTLY the same run-times as gcc for the two tests
(0.2s for math in if-block, 1.0s for math out of if-block).
So this is r
Oh, I forgot to note that the compiler is
* Feb 22 4.0 CVS / i686-pc-linux-gnu
And the compilation flags I used were:
* -march=pentium4 -O3
The times come from running the software on a
* P4 2.8 GHz
-BenRI
Hi,
I have a C++ program that runs slower under 4.0 CVS than 3.4. So, I am
trying to make some test-cases that might help deduce the reason.
However, when I reduced this testcase sufficiently, it began behaving
badly under BOTH 3.4 and 4.0 but I guess I should start with the
most reduced
> Please add your testcase to PR19883 and mention that this is
breaking boost.
Giovanni Bajo
OK, done!
-BenRI
Hi,
I have a reduced testcase from BOOST that fails with yesterdays CVS
(4.0.0 20050214 (experimental)), but compiles under 3.4. I don't know
if this is a bug in BOOST or in g++:
-- begin testcase
template< typename T, T N >
struct integral_c
{
static const T value = N;
typ
22 matches
Mail list logo
