Hi Joern and list(s),
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Joern Rennecke
wrote:
> He also said that it was a different machine, Core 2 Q6600 vs
> some kind of Xeon Core 2 system with a total of eight cores.
> As different memory subsystems are likely to affect the code, it
> is not an established r
Joern Rennecke wrote:
Quoting Mark Tall :
Joern Rennecke wrote:
But at any rate, the subject does not agree with
the content of the original post. When we talk
about a 'regression' in a particular gcc version,
we generally mean that this version is in some
way worse than a previous version of
Quoting Mark Tall :
Joern Rennecke wrote:
But at any rate, the subject does not agree with
the content of the original post. When we talk
about a 'regression' in a particular gcc version,
we generally mean that this version is in some
way worse than a previous version of gcc.
Didn't the orig
Joern Rennecke wrote:
> But at any rate, the subject does not agree with
> the content of the original post. When we talk
> about a 'regression' in a particular gcc version,
> we generally mean that this version is in some
> way worse than a previous version of gcc.
Didn't the original poster ind
Joern Rennecke writes:
> Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
>
>> francesco biscani writes:
>>
>>> I'm experiencing a strange behaviour with GCC 4.4.1. Basically I have
>>> some C++ mathematical code which gets a ~x2 performance drop if I
>>> *remove* the following debug line from the code:
>>
>>
>> This
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
francesco biscani writes:
I'm experiencing a strange behaviour with GCC 4.4.1. Basically I have
some C++ mathematical code which gets a ~x2 performance drop if I
*remove* the following debug line from the code:
This message is not appropriate for the mailing list
francesco biscani writes:
> I'm experiencing a strange behaviour with GCC 4.4.1. Basically I have
> some C++ mathematical code which gets a ~x2 performance drop if I
> *remove* the following debug line from the code:
This message is not appropriate for the mailing list g...@gcc.gnu.org.
It is a
Hi list,
I'm experiencing a strange behaviour with GCC 4.4.1. Basically I have
some C++ mathematical code which gets a ~x2 performance drop if I
*remove* the following debug line from the code:
---
std::cout << "Block size: " << block_size << '\n';
---
Where block_size
