From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11408 invoked by alias); 16 Aug 2009 11:24:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 11398 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Aug 2009 11:24:15 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_SUB_ENC_UTF8,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rekin26.go2.pl (HELO rekin26.go2.pl) (193.17.41.76) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 16 Aug 2009 11:24:09 +0000 Received: from rekin26.go2.pl (d4 [127.0.0.1]) by rekin26.go2.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0BD15BE14 for ; Sun, 16 Aug 2009 13:24:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from o2.pl (unknown [10.0.0.37]) by rekin26.go2.pl (Postfix) with SMTP for ; Sun, 16 Aug 2009 13:24:06 +0200 (CEST) Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?GCC_4..4.x_speed_regression_-_help=3F?= From: =?UTF-8?Q?ami=5Fstuff?= To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <2fdfa587.3e8d2013.4a87ec55.d57bd@o2.pl> Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 16:02:00 -0000 X-Originator: 212.67.149.145 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-08/txt/msg00271.txt.bz2 Hi, I found out that GCC 4.4.x build of minigzip from zlib package is a lot slo= wer compared to GCC 3.4.0 build. Maybe someone can compile minigzip for his system with GCC 3.4.x and GCC 4.= 4.x and compare time of compression with bigger file? This way we would know if this regression only happens on= the m68k GCC or maybe on other platforms too. I really don't like regressions like this :/ http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D40454 Regards