On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Oleg Smolsky wrote:
> Hi there, I have compiled and run a set of C++ benchmarks on a CentOS4/64
> box using the following compilers:
> a) g++4.1 that is available for this distro (GCC version 4.1.2 20071124
> (Red Hat 4.1.2-42)
> b) g++4.6 that I built (stock
2011/7/29 Daniel Marjamäki :
> Hello!
>
>> Why doesn't it matter in this case but it matters when the initializer
>> are non-constant?
>
> It doesn't matter because the program will behave the same no matter
> if the initializations are reordered or not. Logically it will behave
> just as the user
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
Quoting Jonathan Wakely :
I would object to changing the behaviour, or if it changes then it
should be controllable so I can continue to get the current behaviour,
e.g. -Wreorder=0 does what you propose, -Wreorder=1 does what we have
now, and -Wreorder is equivalent to -Wreorder=1
That sounds
On 30 July 2011 15:56, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> Quoting Jonathan Wakely :
>
>> I would object to changing the behaviour, or if it changes then it
>> should be controllable so I can continue to get the current behaviour,
>> e.g. -Wreorder=0 does what you propose, -Wreorder=1 does what we have
>> now,
2011/7/30 Joern Rennecke :
> Quoting Jonathan Wakely :
>
>> I would object to changing the behaviour, or if it changes then it
>> should be controllable so I can continue to get the current behaviour,
>> e.g. -Wreorder=0 does what you propose, -Wreorder=1 does what we have
>> now, and -Wreorder is
Snapshot gcc-4.7-20110730 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.7-20110730/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.7 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
2011/7/29 Daniel Marjamäki :
> Hello!
>
>> Why doesn't it matter in this case but it matters when the initializer
>> are non-constant?
>
> It doesn't matter because the program will behave the same no matter
> if the initializations are reordered or not. Logically it will behave
> just as the user
