From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5109 invoked by alias); 31 Aug 2004 09:41:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 5100 invoked from network); 31 Aug 2004 09:41:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO Cantor.suse.de) (195.135.220.2) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 31 Aug 2004 09:41:05 -0000 Received: from extimap.suse.de (extimap.suse.de [195.135.220.6]) (using TLSv1 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by Cantor.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E21DEB4814E; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 11:41:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from stevenb.home.suse.de (70-90.ipact.nl [82.210.90.70]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by extimap.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5778768650; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 11:41:04 +0200 (CEST) From: Steven Bosscher To: Karel Gardas , GCC Mailing List Subject: Re: Compilation performance comparison of gcc3.4.1 and gcc3.5.0 2004-08-30 on MICO sources Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 10:12:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 References: In-Reply-To: Organization: SUSE Labs MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200408311141.06568.stevenb@suse.de> X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg01598.txt.bz2 On Tuesday 31 August 2004 11:11, Karel Gardas wrote: > Hello, > > several times promised here are finally the results obtained for > yesterday's main-trunk and -O0/1/2 compilations (whole table is below) > > As I've already reported -O0 is better, which is great! And O1 and O2 are > slower for about 8.5% and 7%. > > Interesting files seem to be: > > 1) typecode.cc: 40% regression on O1 while 7% speedup on O2 Can you show us the time report for the 40% regression? Gr. Steven