--- Comment #6 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-07 21:21 ---
I don't have time to work on these (new job), so unassigning.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-19
11:26 ---
Thanks for your feedback.
I agree that profile opts should never hurt the code quality. I am not sure
what the problem is in this particular case, I haven't looked at the actual
assembler output yet,
--- Additional Comments From jbucata at tulsaconnect dot com 2005-07-18
21:11 ---
FWIW, I'm trying 4.1.0 beta 20050716, and it does better than 4.0.1.
-funroll-loops still slows it down (about 0.5s vs without it), but without, 4.1
shaves about 1.5 seconds off user time vs 4.0.1 (about
--- Additional Comments From jbucata at tulsaconnect dot com 2005-07-18
04:42 ---
For me, with -march=athlon-xp, -funroll-loops on 4.0.0 did indeed pessimize
slightly. However, -fprofile-{generate,use} pessimized more on top of that. So
there's still a problem with regard to the PO.
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-15
11:52 ---
Average (of three runs) user times:
(1) is -march=i686 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
(2) is -march=i686 -O3 -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer
(3) is -march=i686 -O3 -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |steven at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From jbucata at tulsaconnect dot com 2005-05-12
07:39 ---
Created an attachment (id=8869)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8869action=view)
preprocessed test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21527
