[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chmouel Boudjnah ) writes: > JF Martinez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Mandrake's marketing claims strongly performance improvements due to > > being compiled with PGCC (an unofficial GCC optimized for Pentiuls and > > Mandrake's developpers claims using gcc2.95 and say it's make a big > difference. When I tested 2.95.2 a couple of months ago, it didn't. Most of the time, the code was actually slower (compute-intensitive code). At least, this was true on -march=k6/pentiumpro on K6-2/celeron366 (the other flag I used was "-O2"). -- Trond Eivind Glomsrød Systems Engineer - distribution team Red Hat, Inc. -- To unsubscribe: mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
- Why no i586/i686 support? Steven Boswell
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Thomas Dodd
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Steven Boswell
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? John Summerfield
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? JF Martinez
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? JF Martinez
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Chmouel Boudjnah
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Trond Eivind Glomsrød
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? John Summerfield
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Steven Boswell
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Trond Eivind Glomsrød
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Steven Boswell
- Re: Why no i586/i686 suppo... John Summerfield
- Re: Why no i586/i686 s... Steven Boswell
- Re: Why no i586/i686 s... JF Martinez
- Re: Why no i586/i686 s... Alan Shutko
- Re: Why no i586/i686 s... John Summerfield
- Re: Why no i586/i686 s... Alan Shutko