Quoting Mark Tall <mtall....@gmail.com>:
Joern Rennecke wrote:
But at any rate, the subject does not agree with
the content of the original post. When we talk
about a 'regression' in a particular gcc version,
we generally mean that this version is in some
way worse than a previous version of gcc.
Didn't the original poster indicate that gcc 4.3 was faster than 4.4 ?
In my book that is a regression.
He also said that it was a different machine, Core 2 Q6600 vs
some kind of Xeon Core 2 system with a total of eight cores.
As different memory subsystems are likely to affect the code, it
is not an established regression till he can reproduce a performance
drop going from an older to a current compiler on the same or
sufficiently similar machines, under comparable load conditions -
which generally means that the machine must be idle apart from the
benchmark.
