From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7969 invoked by alias); 27 Apr 2009 15:32:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 7785 invoked by alias); 27 Apr 2009 15:32:28 -0000 Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:32:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20090427153228.7784.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug regression/39914] 96% performance regression in floating point code; part of the problem started 2009/03/12-13 In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "lucier at math dot purdue dot edu" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-04/txt/msg02602.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #6 from lucier at math dot purdue dot edu 2009-04-27 15:32 ------- Subject: Re: 96% performance regression in floating point code; part of the problem started 2009/03/12-13 On Mon, 2009-04-27 at 15:26 +0000, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > This is by design -O1 is way slower than -O2 now. I have seen no general discussion that -O1 should be destroyed as a useful compilation option. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39914