From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11496 invoked by alias); 29 Jan 2004 16:01:35 -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 11482 invoked by uid 48); 29 Jan 2004 16:01:34 -0000 Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:01:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20040129160134.11480.qmail@sources.redhat.com> From: "falk at debian dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20040116211131.13712.william.crocker@analog.com> References: <20040116211131.13712.william.crocker@analog.com> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug optimization/13712] Executable runs 25% slower than when compiled with INTEL compiler X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg03764.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2004-01-29 16:01 ------- Thanks for the test case. I see it's using FP math heavily. Could you also try the options -ffast-math and -mfpmath=sse? AFAIK the Intel compiler does the equivalent of these switches by default so they are needed for a fair comparison. -- What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- GCC build triplet|??? | GCC host triplet|DELL, Pentium4, Linux RedHat| |7.3 | GCC target triplet|??? |i686-pc-linux-gnu http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13712