On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Matthias Klose wrote: > funny report. what do you expect? please provide the relevant source > as documented in /usr/share/doc/gcc-3.0/README.Bugs.gz. > > > I'm Gabor Lenart from Hungary and we're developing a movie player software > > for Linux. We tried to compile and benchmark mplayer (our player) with both > > of gcc 3.0 and gcc 2.95. We found out that gcc 3.0 produces SLOWER and > BIGGER > > code than 2.95. Is it normal? If it is, I will refuse to use gcc 3.0 since > > I need maximum speed, since on my AMD K6-2 DVD playback is a very CPU > > sensitive situation.
FYI, the K6 support in gcc suffered a tad from bitrot, so it's not nearly as good as it could be (which could explain poor performance if you're compiling your code with the K6 scheduling/optimisation options). Work is being done on it now, though, to improve things hopefully for 3.0.1. Athlon support is pretty good, though, if that's any consolation. Other than that, I agree with Matthias...we would need the code to really determine if that's the true cause or not. C
