From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31814 invoked by alias); 12 Apr 2002 12:35:17 -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 31803 invoked from network); 12 Apr 2002 12:35:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO gate2.knmi.nl) (145.23.254.151) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 12 Apr 2002 12:35:10 -0000 Received: (from fwmaster@localhost) by gate2.knmi.nl (8.9.1a/8.6.12) id OAA17840 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 14:35:09 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by gate2p1.knmi.nl via smap (V1.3) id sma016947; Fri, 12 Apr 02 14:34:16 +0200 Received: from knmi.nl (bgwd73.knmi.nl [145.23.19.166]) by BCSXCS.knmi.nl with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id 217YDP4H; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 14:34:19 +0200 Message-ID: <3CB6D448.45A4FE3E@knmi.nl> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 05:45:00 -0000 From: Toon Moene Organization: Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: contribution Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00491.txt.bz2 Andi Kleen wrote: > Alexey Starovoytov writes: >> For example SPECfp benchmark 172.mgrid showed 48% improvement >> compiled with "-O2 -Ws,-O2,-fno-strict-aliasing" vs plain GCC >> with "-O2" > You could compiled 172.mgrid with gcc twice this way and it showed > 48% improvement ? Or did you use a different compiler as backend? > If you used gcc - is it known where that huge difference comes > from? A more important aspect of such a compiler would be idempotency. I.e., is gcc(gcc(x.c)) = gcc(x.c) ? [ Ducks :-) ] -- Toon Moene, KNMI, PO Box 201, 3730 AE De Bilt, The Netherlands. Tel. +31302206443, Fax +31302210407, e-mail moene@knmi.nl URL: http://www.knmi.nl/hirlam