H. Narfi Stefansson wrote:
Giuseppe wrote:
w9ya wrote:
Austin wrote: [for me, thanks Austin!]
The best times of the 4 were:
athlon-xp:12.16
i586: 13.24
i586, no mmx: 57.65
Honestly I never found yet a package
that will increase
performance of even 10% just
Giuseppe;
Actually my remarks were (mostly) meant for Adam. Sorry about that., I think I
am agreeing with you, at least in part. The RPM building option you mention
is interesting.
Hmmm...well, can I get your input on an article on freshmeat? The URL is
w9ya wrote:
As I understand the gcc docs, using both -march and -mcpu is odd. You should
probably be running these tests with just -march or just -mcpu. There may be
some other issues as well, but this is as good a place to start as any.
Bob Finch
On Wednesday 19 March 2003 03:12 pm, Austin
Again, some of the flags are being used wrong:
Giuseppe please check the gcc docs, as some (most) flags are redundant with
-02 and almost all are with -03. Things have changed radically in this area
with the upgrade to 3.x
Bob Finch
On Monday 24 March 2003 12:24 pm, Giuseppe Ghibò wrote:
w9ya wrote:
Again, some of the flags are being used wrong:
Giuseppe please check the gcc docs, as some (most) flags are redundant with
-02 and almost all are with -03. Things have changed radically in this area
with the upgrade to 3.x
Bob Finch
Which flags are you talking about? I wasn't
Giuseppe wrote:
w9ya wrote:
Austin wrote: [for me, thanks Austin!]
The best times of the 4 were:
athlon-xp:12.16
i586: 13.24
i586, no mmx: 57.65
Honestly I never found yet a package
that will increase
performance of even 10% just changing the compiler flags
Guiseppe, I
Hi,
But I asked this morning how to build both i686 and i586 libraries into
the same package and I was essentially called an idiot,
Hmm, this is becoming non-sense.
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg104137.html
This was a direct answer to your message. You then ask for the same
Hi,
Giuseppe please check the gcc docs, as some (most) flags are redundant
with
-02 and almost all are with -03.
From Giuseppe's mail, I don't see any redundant flags with -O2. Besides,
-O3 only enables register renaming and automatic (per gcc's criteria)
function inlining over -O2, in gcc
On 2003.03.24 17:23 Gwenole Beauchesne wrote:
Hmm, this is becoming non-sense.
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg104137.html
This was a direct answer to your message. You then ask for the same things
this morning.
My god. You can't be serious. If that was a 'direct answer' on how
Here's a simple benchmark from Narfi.
Athlon XP 2100.
Asus A7N8X motherboard (NForce2)
512 MB memory, PC2700 2-2-2
Mandrake 9.0
###
# Compiling for athlon-xp
export CFLAGS=-march=athlon-xp -mcpu=athlon-xp -O3 -finline-limit=1
-ffast-math -fomit-frame-pointer; export
As I understand the gcc docs, using both -march and -mcpu is odd. You should
probably be running these tests with just -march or just -mcpu. There may be
some other issues as well, but this is as good a place to start as any.
Bob Finch
On Wednesday 19 March 2003 03:12 pm, Austin wrote:
11 matches
Mail list logo
