[Bug c/40454] GCC 4.4.0 vs 3.4.0 - PNGCrush is about 20% slower when compiled with GCC 4.4.0

2009-08-17 Thread ami_stuff at o2 dot pl
--- Comment #11 from ami_stuff at o2 dot pl 2009-08-17 09:26 --- Preprocessed files compiles with GCC 3.4.0 and GCC 4.4.1. I added them as an attachments plus asm output. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40454

[Bug c/40454] GCC 4.4.0 vs 3.4.0 - PNGCrush is about 20% slower when compiled with GCC 4.4.0

2009-08-17 Thread ami_stuff at o2 dot pl
--- Comment #10 from ami_stuff at o2 dot pl 2009-08-17 09:23 --- Created an attachment (id=18381) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18381&action=view) assembler output from GCC 3.4.0 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40454

[Bug c/40454] GCC 4.4.0 vs 3.4.0 - PNGCrush is about 20% slower when compiled with GCC 4.4.0

2009-08-17 Thread ami_stuff at o2 dot pl
--- Comment #9 from ami_stuff at o2 dot pl 2009-08-17 09:23 --- Created an attachment (id=18380) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18380&action=view) assembler output from GCC 4.4.1 -- ami_stuff at o2 dot pl changed: What|Removed

[Bug c/40454] GCC 4.4.0 vs 3.4.0 - PNGCrush is about 20% slower when compiled with GCC 4.4.0

2009-08-17 Thread ami_stuff at o2 dot pl
--- Comment #8 from ami_stuff at o2 dot pl 2009-08-17 09:22 --- Created an attachment (id=18379) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18379&action=view) Assembler output from GCC 3.4.0 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40454

[Bug c/40454] GCC 4.4.0 vs 3.4.0 - PNGCrush is about 20% slower when compiled with GCC 4.4.0

2009-08-17 Thread ami_stuff at o2 dot pl
--- Comment #7 from ami_stuff at o2 dot pl 2009-08-17 09:21 --- Created an attachment (id=18378) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18378&action=view) preprocessed file from GCC 4.4.1 (compiles with GCC 3.4.0) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40454

[Bug c/40454] GCC 4.4.0 vs 3.4.0 - PNGCrush is about 20% slower when compiled with GCC 4.4.0

2009-08-17 Thread ami_stuff at o2 dot pl
--- Comment #6 from ami_stuff at o2 dot pl 2009-08-17 09:21 --- Created an attachment (id=18377) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18377&action=view) preprocessed file from GCC 3.4.0 (compiles with GCC 4.4.1) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40454

[Bug c/40454] GCC 4.4.0 vs 3.4.0 - PNGCrush is about 20% slower when compiled with GCC 4.4.0

2009-08-17 Thread bonzini at gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-08-17 08:42 --- Can you check if the same preprocessed source for deflate.c (the deflate.i file obtained with --save-temps) compiles fine with both 3.4.0 and 4.4.1? If so, please attach it together with the deflate.s files produced by the

[Bug c/40454] GCC 4.4.0 vs 3.4.0 - PNGCrush is about 20% slower when compiled with GCC 4.4.0

2009-08-16 Thread ami_stuff at o2 dot pl
--- Comment #4 from ami_stuff at o2 dot pl 2009-08-16 14:02 --- The problematic source code is deflate.c from libz. CFLAGS=-O3 -DUSE_MMAP -m68060 -fomit-frame-pointer When I compile all source code with GCC 4.4.1, I get slow minigzip binary. When I compile all source code with GCC 4.4

[Bug c/40454] GCC 4.4.0 vs 3.4.0 - PNGCrush is about 20% slower when compiled with GCC 4.4.0

2009-08-15 Thread ami_stuff at o2 dot pl
--- Comment #3 from ami_stuff at o2 dot pl 2009-08-16 01:28 --- This slowdown is because of libz. When I use minigzip from libz package to compress data, I get the same slowdown with GCC 4.4.1. Maybe someone will try to fix it? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40454

[Bug c/40454] GCC 4.4.0 vs 3.4.0 - PNGCrush is about 20% slower when compiled with GCC 4.4.0

2009-08-12 Thread ami_stuff at o2 dot pl
--- Comment #2 from ami_stuff at o2 dot pl 2009-08-12 12:09 --- The same problem happens with GCC 4.4.1. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40454

[Bug c/40454] GCC 4.4.0 vs 3.4.0 - PNGCrush is about 20% slower when compiled with GCC 4.4.0

2009-06-18 Thread ami_stuff at o2 dot pl
--- Comment #1 from ami_stuff at o2 dot pl 2009-06-18 11:27 --- Anyone can try to reproduce this bug on his system? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40454