On Thursday 25 April 2002 00:22, Gareth Pearce wrote:
> >On Tuesday 23 April 2002 23:41, Sami Korhonen wrote:
> > > On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Tim Prince wrote:
>
> >AFAICT there's no reason this should behave differently on linux or
> > cygwin. You're comparing the speed of memcmp() against the speed
>On Tuesday 23 April 2002 23:41, Sami Korhonen wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Tim Prince wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 23 April 2002 22:04, Sami Korhonen wrote:
> > > > I wasnt sure wheter I should post about this on gcc bug report list
>or
> > > > here. Anyways, it seems that using -O2 flag with gc
On Tuesday 23 April 2002 23:41, Sami Korhonen wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Tim Prince wrote:
> > On Tuesday 23 April 2002 22:04, Sami Korhonen wrote:
> > > I wasnt sure wheter I should post about this on gcc bug report list or
> > > here. Anyways, it seems that using -O2 flag with gcc causes hug
> > I wasnt sure wheter I should post about this on gcc bug report list or
> > here. Anyways, it seems that using -O2 flag with gcc causes huge
>slowdown
> > in memcmp(). However i dont see performance drop under linux, so I
>suppose
> > it is cygwin issue.
cygwin's gcc version may be using an
On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Tim Prince wrote:
> On Tuesday 23 April 2002 22:04, Sami Korhonen wrote:
> > I wasnt sure wheter I should post about this on gcc bug report list or
> > here. Anyways, it seems that using -O2 flag with gcc causes huge slowdown
> > in memcmp(). However i dont see performance d
On Tuesday 23 April 2002 22:04, Sami Korhonen wrote:
> I wasnt sure wheter I should post about this on gcc bug report list or
> here. Anyways, it seems that using -O2 flag with gcc causes huge slowdown
> in memcmp(). However i dont see performance drop under linux, so I suppose
> it is cygwin iss
6 matches
Mail list logo
