From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12088 invoked by alias); 13 Mar 2004 08:06:29 -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 12081 invoked by alias); 13 Mar 2004 08:06:28 -0000 Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 08:06:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20040313080628.12080.qmail@sources.redhat.com> From: "paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20040312233606.14563.paulthomas2@wanadoo.fr> References: <20040312233606.14563.paulthomas2@wanadoo.fr> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/14563] octave built under Cygwin very slow X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg01655.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2004-03-13 08:06 ------- Subject: Re: octave built under Cygwin very slow I am not in a position to do so right now; the system that has Cygwin loaded on it is at work - I am 100% linux at home. Unfortunately, I am out of town next week, so cannot get back to this until a week Monday. I have cc'd this to Ben Diedrich in the hope that he can help you. An obvious question, is what form would you like the test cases in? The output from octave benchmarks or the octave binaries? If it is the former, you will be able to get started on the octave mailing list: http://www.octave.org/mailing-lists/help-octave/2004/325 http://www.octave.org/mailing-lists/help-octave/2004/337 http://www.octave.org/mailing-lists/help-octave/2004/339 <--- contains configuration details http://www.octave.org/mailing-lists/help-octave/2004/389 <--- ditto If you want the binaries, that will take a little longer.... It might be more practical, if you have the time, to build octave yourself. We used octave-2.1.50 for our attempts to pin-point the problem because the "good" binary from octave-forge used this version. However, 2.1.53 and 2.1.56 both were slow when built with gcc-3.3.3 Ben, did you keep the deffective binaries? Paul Thomas pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: >------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-03-13 07:24 ------- >Can you provide a testcase where 3.3.3 is slower than 3.2.3? > > > -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14563