From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-50391-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 13678 invoked by alias); 21 Apr 2002 14:29:20 -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 13671 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2002 14:29:18 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO Cantor.suse.de) (213.95.15.193)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Apr 2002 14:29:18 -0000
Received: from Hermes.suse.de (Charybdis.suse.de [213.95.15.201])
	by Cantor.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2DBE1E56B
	for <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 16:29:17 +0200 (MEST)
To: Jan Hubicka <jh@suse.cz>
Cc: aj@suse.de, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: GCC performance regression - up to 20% ?
References: <20020421005718.GA16378@zoy.org.suse.lists.egcs> <20020421113238.GC16602@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz.suse.lists.egcs>
From: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 07:58:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: Jan Hubicka's message of "21 Apr 2002 13:33:12 +0200"
Message-ID: <p73ofgd86rm.fsf@oldwotan.suse.de>
X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg01043.txt.bz2

Jan Hubicka <jh@suse.cz> writes:
> 
> No, the SPECint numbers are quite consistenly higher than in any previous
> release. See http://www.suse.de/~aj/SPEC
> In fact no previous release had such a huge gap in perofrmance.

http://www.suse.de/~aj/SPEC/CFP/sandbox-gcc-3_1-branch/index.html

179.art seems to have regressed badly a lot a few days ago. Is that just a bad
run or a price for some bug fix? 

-Andi