Anthony DeRobertis writes:
>
> On Friday, January 4, 2002, at 08:17 , Morten Brix Pedersen wrote:
>
> > mbp:~$ g++ benchmark.cpp ; ls -l a.out ; time a.out ; g++-3.0
> > benchmark.cpp
> > ; ls -l a.out ; time a.out
> >
> Well, first, take . out of your path! I get:
>
> -rwxr-xr-x1 anthony
On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 03:51:40AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Phil Edwards writes:
> > The library 3.0.95 snapshot is the 3.1 sources as of a few weeks ago,
> > with the exception-handling bits tweaked to work with GCC 3.0.
>
> assume we want to get 3.0.95 into the Debian woody release, we hav
Phil Edwards writes:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 06:27:20PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > how stable is this compared to 3.0.3? Is the ABI upward compatible, so
> > that it could replace 3.0.3?
>
> Good point. This is something a lot of people get confused by. Including
> me, so get your grains
On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 06:27:20PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Phil Edwards writes:
> >
> > On top of all the other reasons already mentioned, the memory expansion
> > code for basic_string<> in 3.0 wasn't as good as it could be (and it
> > wasn't strictly conforming in some cases). These prob
Phil Edwards writes:
>
> On top of all the other reasons already mentioned, the memory expansion
> code for basic_string<> in 3.0 wasn't as good as it could be (and it
> wasn't strictly conforming in some cases). These problems have already
> been fixed for 3.1; there are some spiffy benchmarks i
On top of all the other reasons already mentioned, the memory expansion
code for basic_string<> in 3.0 wasn't as good as it could be (and it
wasn't strictly conforming in some cases). These problems have already
been fixed for 3.1; there are some spiffy benchmarks in the libstdc++
mailing list ar
Hi,
Morten Brix Pedersen wrote:
> int main()
> {
> string test = "IUHASISAHDNI";
>
> vector vec;
> for (int i = 0; i <= 50; ++i) {
> string newstr;
> test += "NAWNASDKJNKNN";
> newstr = test;
String assignments are threadsafe now with gcc-3.0, so that wil
On Sat, Jan 05, 2002 at 02:17:21AM +0100, Morten Brix Pedersen wrote:
> Package: gcc-3.0
> Version: 1:3.0.3-1
>
> I don't know if it's valid for this bug report, but all code I have tried is
> slower in g++ 3, here's a simple example:
There's lots of reasons for this. The biggest one is that the
On Friday, January 4, 2002, at 08:17 , Morten Brix Pedersen wrote:
mbp:~$ g++ benchmark.cpp ; ls -l a.out ; time a.out ; g++-3.0
benchmark.cpp
; ls -l a.out ; time a.out
Well, first, take . out of your path! I get:
-rwxr-xr-x1 anthony anthony 42840 Jan 5 23:46 a.out
real0m7.870s
use
Package: gcc-3.0
Version: 1:3.0.3-1
I don't know if it's valid for this bug report, but all code I have tried is
slower in g++ 3, here's a simple example:
(numbers first, code in the bottom)
mbp:~$ g++ benchmark.cpp ; ls -l a.out ; time a.out ; g++-3.0 benchmark.cpp
; ls -l a.out ; time a.out
-rw
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 be
funny report. what do you expect? please provide the relevant source
as documented in /usr/share/doc/gcc-3.0/README.Bugs.gz.
Gabor Lenart writes:
> Package: gcc-3.0
> Version: 1:3.0-2
> Severity: wishlist
>
> Hi!
>
> I'm Gabor Lenart from Hungary and we're developing a movie player softwa
Package: gcc-3.0
Version: 1:3.0-2
Severity: wishlist
Hi!
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
