[Bug libfortran/20278] Performance regression in formatted output vs. g77

2005-06-04 Thread aa056 at chebucto dot ns dot ca
--- Additional Comments From aa056 at chebucto dot ns dot ca 2005-06-04 18:44 --- For Red Hat Fedora Core 3, gfortran 4.0.0 doesn't lose output records: $ ./chk-write-many uname -a Linux cerberus.cwmannwn.nowhere 2.6.11-1.14_FC3.stk16 #1 Tue Apr 12 14:39:51 EDT 2005 i686 i686 i386 GNU/L

[Bug libfortran/20278] Performance regression in formatted output vs. g77

2005-06-02 Thread aa056 at chebucto dot ns dot ca
--- Additional Comments From aa056 at chebucto dot ns dot ca 2005-06-02 16:11 --- The test doesn't tell us if the output is correct! The attached script runs the test but saves the output. On Windows XP Msys the gfortran output is missing a block of records: $ ./chk-write-many.sh ca

[Bug libfortran/20278] Performance regression in formatted output vs. g77

2005-03-03 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-04 03:55 --- Confirmed. We spend 46.3% of the time in output_float. 8.0% in finalize_transfer. 4.8% in _gfortrani_free_fnodes 4.8% in write_float Comparing to g77, where we spend: 48.5% in wrt_E 7.4% in wrt_F 7.4% in x_

[Bug libfortran/20278] Performance regression in formatted output vs. g77

2005-03-03 Thread Thomas dot Koenig at online dot de
--- Additional Comments From Thomas dot Koenig at online dot de 2005-03-03 20:27 --- Same thing on i686: $ gfortran write-many.f $ time ./a.out real0m5.576s user0m5.508s sys 0m0.038s $ g77 write-many.f $ time ./a.out real0m3.252s user0m3.185s sys 0m0.041s --