On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 10:06:57PM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote: > On Wednesday 01 March 2006 21:49, H. J. Lu wrote: > > It is the issue of quality of gcc 4.1 on IA32/x86-64. The current gcc > > 4.1 performs very poorly on IA32/x86-64, comparing against gcc 4.2. > > Oh, really? Where are the numbers you have to support this, may I > say, unlikely claim?
Here are diffs of SPEC CPU 2K between before and after with gcc 4.1 using "-O2 -ffast-math" on Nocona: 164.gzip 2.50% 175.vpr 1.55% 176.gcc -0.33% 181.mcf 0.85% 186.crafty 0.06% 197.parser 0.62% 252.eon 8.58% 253.perlbmk 2.75% 254.gap 0.66% 255.vortex 7.59% 256.bzip2 4.45% 300.twolf 21.11% SPECint_base2000 4.04% 168.wupwise 39.10% 171.swim 38.88% 172.mgrid 61.64% 173.applu 37.62% 177.mesa 3.12% 178.galgel 27.13% 179.art 18.98% 183.equake 26.67% 187.facerec 0.35% 188.ammp 36.78% 189.lucas 3.52% 191.fma3d 42.71% 200.sixtrack 116.13% 301.apsi 32.75% SPECfp_base2000 32.18% > > This change > > is specific to the IA32/x86-64 backend and won't affect any other > > targets. > > Hmm... I thought Mark's message was pretty clear: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-03/msg00060.html > To quote: > "The GCC 4.1 branch is now open, under the usual branch rules: fixes for > regressions only." > The exception is the rule. We have done so on gcc 3.4 branch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2004-04/msg00775.html H.J.