--- Comment #7 from dominic dot quiet at gmail dot com 2006-03-12 22:26
---
Created an attachment (id=11034)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11034&action=view)
My new results without -marh=athlon-xp
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26656
--- Comment #6 from dominic dot quiet at gmail dot com 2006-03-12 22:25
---
Created an attachment (id=11033)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11033&action=view)
Fixed benchmark
I fixed my benchmark. You are right about the condition always being true after
127. I was
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-12 21:45 ---
Your benchmark is bad news as one rand is not a good randomizer for the lower
bits, oh after 127, the condition for your benchmark becomes always true which
is why it gets slower again.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu
--- Comment #4 from dominic dot quiet at gmail dot com 2006-03-12 21:41
---
Created an attachment (id=11032)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11032&action=view)
My results with -march=athlon-xp
The behavior of the ?: compared to without -march=athlon-xp may be a sign
--- Comment #3 from dominic dot quiet at gmail dot com 2006-03-12 21:31
---
Created an attachment (id=11031)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11031&action=view)
My results without -march=athlon-xp
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26656
--- Comment #2 from dominic dot quiet at gmail dot com 2006-03-12 21:23
---
Created an attachment (id=11030)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11030&action=view)
Benchmark
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26656
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-12 19:33 ---
Could you give a testcase which can be compiled?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26656
