Daniel Kegel wrote:
> So, I'm looking around for other reports of performance
> regressions in gcc-4.0. So far, the only other ones I've
> heard of are those reported in http://www.coyotegulch.com/reviews/gcc4/
> I'm tempted to have a student try reproducing and boiling down the POV-Ray
> performa
On 6/6/05, Georg Bauhaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Daniel Kegel wrote:
>
> > So, I'm looking around for other reports of performance
> > regressions in gcc-4.0.
>
> I came across this one:
>
> int foo(int a, int b)
> {
> return a + b;
> }
>
> int bar()
> {
> int x = 0, y =
Daniel Kegel wrote:
So, I'm looking around for other reports of performance
regressions in gcc-4.0.
I came across this one:
int foo(int a, int b)
{
return a + b;
}
int bar()
{
int x = 0, y = 10;
int c;
for (c=0; c < 123123123 && x > -1; ++c, --y)
René Rebe wrote:
I think this massive -Os regressions on C++ code as experienced in tramp3d and
botan should be investigated. However I have not looked for filled PRs or
more recnt snapshots of 4.0 so far ...
Oh good, so it's not just me. ;)
I opened PR21314 a while back but ended up chickeni
Hi,
On Monday 06 June 2005 09:01, Daniel Kegel wrote:
> I recently worked with a UCLA student to boil down
> a reported openssl performance regression with gcc-4.0
> to a small standalone case (see http://gcc.gnu.org/PR19923).
> We have a bit more followup to do there, but it seems
> to have been
I recently worked with a UCLA student to boil down
a reported openssl performance regression with gcc-4.0
to a small standalone case (see http://gcc.gnu.org/PR19923).
We have a bit more followup to do there, but it seems
to have been a good use of an student's time.
So, I'm looking around for oth
