From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10633 invoked by alias); 24 Jun 2003 13:23:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 29812 invoked by uid 48); 24 Jun 2003 12:35:42 -0000 Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:23:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030624123542.29811.qmail@sources.redhat.com> From: "o dot lauffenburger at topsolid dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20021002075601.8126.o.lauffenburger@topsolid.com> References: <20021002075601.8126.o.lauffenburger@topsolid.com> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug optimization/8126] [3.3/3.4 regression] Floating point computation far slower in 3.2 than in 2.95 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg02564.txt.bz2 List-Id: PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8126 ------- Additional Comments From o dot lauffenburger at topsolid dot com 2003-06-24 12:35 ------- I have tested the -fnew-ra option with version 3.3 and the other options (-O3 - ffast-math -fomit-frame-pointer). Without -fnew-ra : 4746 ms With -fnew-ra : 9063 ms (With gcc 2.95 : 2914 ms) So it is apparently worse with the option -fnew-ra.