From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 549 invoked by alias); 18 Feb 2006 14:36:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 529 invoked by uid 48); 18 Feb 2006 14:36:15 -0000 Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 14:36:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20060218143615.528.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug target/26290] [4.1 Regression]: some loop optimizations no longer run at -O2 In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "steven at gcc dot gnu dot org" 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 X-SW-Source: 2006-02/txt/msg02059.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Comment #6 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-18 14:36 ------- Timings with the same compilers on the same machine, but with -m32 -march=pentium4 (but still with -O2): GCC 4.0 GCC 4.1 0m4.148s 0m8.817s 0m4.140s 0m8.785s 0m4.164s 0m8.761s So: 1) We produce _faster_ code with GCC 4.0 -m32 than with -m64 2) GCC 4.1 -m32 produces code that is twice as slow as GCC 4.0 -m32, as reported. Both points are odd (and no, I did not by accident swap the results somwhere ;-) -- steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Last reconfirmed|2006-02-15 10:58:11 |2006-02-18 14:36:15 date| | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26290