| 1 |
Oh, and euhm.. |
| 2 |
What about this?: |
| 3 |
http://gcc.gnu.org/faq.html#optimizing |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
If gcc itself is optimised with for example '-O3 -fomit-frame-pointer', |
| 6 |
won't that make it faster than gcc 2.95.3? :o) |
| 7 |
Just taking wild guesses here :o) |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
See ya |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
On Monday 08 April 2002 00:54, Spider wrote: |
| 12 |
|| Hello, I've just upgraded my -rc6 to -1.0-gcc3 and decided to make an |
| 13 |
|| (unofficial) benchmark. |
| 14 |
|| |
| 15 |
|| I went for galeon, I had originally intended to use mozilla, but the |
| 16 |
|| time-results borked so I go for galeon instead.. smaller codebase, so |
| 17 |
|| its not as great difference, but it does have both c and c++ code, so it |
| 18 |
|| might be a decent choice. |
| 19 |
|| |
| 20 |
|| |
| 21 |
|| gcc 2.95.3 : |
| 22 |
|| real 3m38.592s |
| 23 |
|| user 2m46.810s |
| 24 |
|| sys 0m28.100s |
| 25 |
|| CFLAGS="-march=i686 -O3 -pipe" |
| 26 |
|| CXXFLAGS="-march=i686 -O3 -pipe" |
| 27 |
|| |
| 28 |
|| |
| 29 |
|| gcc 3.0.4 : |
| 30 |
|| real 5m6.465s |
| 31 |
|| user 3m27.440s |
| 32 |
|| sys 0m30.140s |
| 33 |
|| CFLAGS="-march=athlon -O3 -pipe" |
| 34 |
|| CXXFLAGS="-march=athlon -O3 -pipe" |
| 35 |
|| |
| 36 |
|| |
| 37 |
|| |
| 38 |
|| |
| 39 |
|| if you only compare the "user" time it should be enough... as the "sys" |
| 40 |
|| show, there's a few percentages difference between them, so this is not |
| 41 |
|| scientific or anything. |
| 42 |
|| |
| 43 |
|| Would be interesting to compare the results as well, since those are |
| 44 |
|| quite likely rather different with the new levels of optimization... |
| 45 |
|| |
| 46 |
|| |
| 47 |
|| //Spider |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
-- |
| 50 |
Bart Verwilst |
| 51 |
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team |
| 52 |
Gent, Belgium |
Archives