At 11:12 PM 11/5/2001 +, Alex Gough wrote:
>On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > At 10:24 AM 11/5/2001 -0300, Daniel Grunblatt wrote:
> > >Right, now, what about the audience with an operative system with gcc
> > >3.0.2?
> >
> > What about 'em? They build the same way everyone else does
On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 10:24 AM 11/5/2001 -0300, Daniel Grunblatt wrote:
> >Right, now, what about the audience with an operative system with gcc
> >3.0.2?
>
> What about 'em? They build the same way everyone else does.
>
> Gearing code specifically towards the quirks of a
At 10:24 AM 11/5/2001 -0300, Daniel Grunblatt wrote:
>Right, now, what about the audience with an operative system with gcc
>3.0.2?
What about 'em? They build the same way everyone else does.
Gearing code specifically towards the quirks of a specific compiler
version's usually a good way to get
Right, now, what about the audience with an operative system with gcc
3.0.2? Can't we ship compiled versions for every plataform/operative
system?
By the way, the patch that I sent is already 2.5 - 3 times faster on *BSD
Daniel Grunblatt.
On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 10:16 AM 1
At 10:16 AM 11/5/2001 -0500, Sam Tregar wrote:
>On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 06:22:59PM -0300, Daniel Grunblatt wrote:
> > > Do you want me to give you an account in my linux machine where I have
> > > install gcc 3.0.2 so that you see it?
> >
> > How much
On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 06:22:59PM -0300, Daniel Grunblatt wrote:
> > Do you want me to give you an account in my linux machine where I have
> > install gcc 3.0.2 so that you see it?
>
> How much effort do we want to put into something that shows a speedu
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Daniel Grunblatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As you can see the problem is still that you are not using gcc 3.0.2,
> please take 10' minutes and compile gcc 3.0.2, I will now compile 3.0.1
> just to see what happens.
I have been having a very hard time bel
A lot, since it's the lastone, and as I said in a previous mail, we can
let everyone download binaries, but, read the previos mail sent by Tom
Hughes there IS a speed up any way on the older version, why shouldn't we
implement this anyway?.
Daniel Grunblatt.
On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Simon Cozens wrot
As you can see the problem is still that you are not using gcc 3.0.2,
please take 10' minutes and compile gcc 3.0.2, I will now compile 3.0.1
just to see what happens.
For the compiled version I attached a diff between the current mops.c and
the patch mops.c, enlighten me on how can that differen
On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 06:22:59PM -0300, Daniel Grunblatt wrote:
> Do you want me to give you an account in my linux machine where I have
> install gcc 3.0.2 so that you see it?
How much effort do we want to put into something that shows a speedup
on one particular version of one particular comp
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Daniel Grunblatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you want me to give you an account in my linux machine where I have
> install gcc 3.0.2 so that you see it?
I'm not sure that will achieve anything - it's not that I don't
believe you, it's just that I'm not
Do you want me to give you an account in my linux machine where I have
install gcc 3.0.2 so that you see it?
Daniel Grunblatt.
On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Tom Hughes wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Daniel Grunblatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Yeap, I was right, using gcc 3.0.2
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Daniel Grunblatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeap, I was right, using gcc 3.0.2 you can see the difference:
I've just tried it with 3.0.1 and see much the same results as I did
with 2.96 I'm afraid. I don't have 3.0.2 to hand without building it
from sou
Yeap, I was right, using gcc 3.0.2 you can see the difference:
Without my patch:
linux# ./test_prog examples/assembly/mops.pbc
Iterations:1
Estimated ops: 3
Elapsed time: 20.972973
M op/s:14.304124
With the patch:
linux# ./test_prog examples/assembly/mops.pbc
Itera
Yes, you are right on that, but that is only on linux, not on *BSD (where
I tried it). I still don't know why is these, Can you try using gcc 3.0.2?
For the compiled version, please read both mops.c you will see there is no
difference except for the definition of the array which if no missing
som
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Daniel Grunblatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All:
> Here's a list of the things I've been doing:
>
> * Added ops2cgc.pl which generates core_cg_ops.c and core_cg_ops.h from
> core.ops, and modified Makefile.in to use it. In core_cg_ops.c resides
>
All:
Here's a list of the things I've been doing:
* Added ops2cgc.pl which generates core_cg_ops.c and core_cg_ops.h from
core.ops, and modified Makefile.in to use it. In core_cg_ops.c resides
cg_core which has an array with the addresses of the label of each opcode
and starts the executi
17 matches
Mail list logo
