(everything compiled with gcc3)
> user0m0.250s
> 9.4
(everything compiled with gcc4)
> user0m0.284s
> 9.25806
Your comparison is not valid. You should only change one variable at once.
We don't care whether a gcc4 sha1 is faster or slower than gcc3 sha1. By your
own numbers gcc4 is sl
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 01:21:48PM +0200, Christian MICHON wrote:
> did you get better benchmark results than using gcc-3.x ?
proportionally to native execution, yes (the gcc-4.1.1's compiled sha1-i386
binary from the tests was slower than the one compiled with gcc-3.4.5)
results for running in
On 6/4/06, Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon wrote:
PS. eventhough it wasn't the cleanest build, gcc-4.1.1 when used to build
everything but op.c resulted in working binaries on my gentoo 2006.0 amd64
system.
did you get better benchmark results than using gcc-3.x ?
--
Christian
___
> Why bother? As you say gcc4 has issues other than just op.c, so why not just
> compile everything with the old gcc?
using the new gcc for the parts that can compile with it, could lead to better
performance in some cases, as well to help clean up the code for conformance
to newer standards and
On Sunday 04 June 2006 09:59, Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> attached patch, adds a ./configure option for setting the C compiler that
> will be used to build op.c for each of the targets; letting the user
> compile everything else with gcc 4.x if configured as the default C
> c
Greetings,
attached patch, adds a ./configure option for setting the C compiler that will
be used to build op.c for each of the targets; letting the user compile
everything else with gcc 4.x if configured as the default C compiler while
isolating the opcode generation which currently relies in gcc
