From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-49828-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 3142 invoked by alias); 12 Apr 2002 07:17:17 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 3036 invoked from network); 12 Apr 2002 07:17:13 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO Cantor.suse.de) (213.95.15.193)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 12 Apr 2002 07:17:13 -0000
Received: from Hermes.suse.de (Charybdis.suse.de [213.95.15.201])
	by Cantor.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 655981E24A; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 09:17:13 +0200 (MEST)
To: Alexey Starovoytov <starlex@eng.sun.com>
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: contribution
References: <Pine.GSO.4.31.0204112030350.15026-101000@boojum.suse.lists.egcs-patches>
From: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 01:28:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: Alexey Starovoytov's message of "12 Apr 2002 05:33:05 +0200"
Message-ID: <p73d6x5bd3c.fsf@oldwotan.suse.de>
X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00480.txt.bz2

Alexey Starovoytov <starlex@eng.sun.com> 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? 

-Andi