On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, Dave Seff wrote:
> I took gcc 2.95.3, 2.96-80 (current cooker version)
It is not.
> It it obvious that gcc 2.95.3 creates code that is twice as fast as the
> latter versions. I ran this test after reading this article:
> http://www.cs.utk.edu/~rwhaley/ATLAS/gcc30.html
Th
Dave Seff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Holy cow. I ran this test and it gave me a completely different result. Why
> is that?
because C doesn't enforce the behaviour for no return/exit, so it just does
whatever it wants :)
Holy cow. I ran this test and it gave me a completely different result. Why
is that?
gcc 2.95:
bash-2.05$ time ./test
Command exited with non-zero status 152
4.47user 0.00system 0:04.47elapsed 99%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (63major+95minor)pagefaults 0swaps
gcc-2.96:
Dave Seff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It it obvious that gcc 2.95.3 creates code that is twice as fast as the
> latter versions.
humf. You must precise that it's better for this "atlas" thingy. You can't
generalize that easily for anything else.
just for fun, here is a test that is more *muc
I just ran a benchmark test on my machine and noticed a big difference
between different versions of gcc. I took gcc 2.95.3, 2.96-80 (current
cooker version), and gcc3.0 (also from cooker). here are my results:
echo "GCC 2.95performance:"
GCC 2.95performance:
./xmm_gcc
ALGORITHM NB
I just ran a benchmark test on my machine and noticed a big difference
between different versions of gcc. I took gcc 2.95.3, 2.96-80 (current
cooker version), and gcc3.0 (also from cooker). here are my results:
echo "GCC 2.95performance:"
GCC 2.95performance:
./xmm_gcc
ALGORITHM NB
