Hello,
Regarding the testcase I mentioned before, I have been checking out the
Intel compiler to see if it would generate better code. Interestingly
enough, it displays EXACTLY the same run-times as gcc for the two tests
(0.2s for math in if-block, 1.0s for math out of if-block).
So this is r
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 10:36:07 -0800, Benjamin Redelings I
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> I have a C++ program that runs slower under 4.0 CVS than 3.4. So, I
> am
> trying to make some test-cases that might help deduce the reason.
> However, when I reduced this testcase sufficiently, it
Andrew Pinski schrieb:
This is a target bug as it does not effect any reasonable processor.
With -mfpmath=sse -msse2 I get:
.L2:
decl%eax
addsd %xmm1, %xmm0
jne .L2
my example was about version 3.4.4, which still has this problem with
sse options:
.L5:
movsd -8
This is a target bug as it does not effect any reasonable processor.
With -mfpmath=sse -msse2 I get:
.L2:
decl%eax
addsd %xmm1, %xmm0
jne .L2
-- Pinski
I think it is a bug, or a "missing feature".
I tried to simpify the testcase below and ended up with a comlete
different testcase, but it causes the same problem:
it seems to be about FPU registers, if anything causes the compiler to
store the value to memory, it treats it as it would be volatil
Oh, I forgot to note that the compiler is
* Feb 22 4.0 CVS / i686-pc-linux-gnu
And the compilation flags I used were:
* -march=pentium4 -O3
The times come from running the software on a
* P4 2.8 GHz
-BenRI
Hi,
I have a C++ program that runs slower under 4.0 CVS than 3.4. So, I am
trying to make some test-cases that might help deduce the reason.
However, when I reduced this testcase sufficiently, it began behaving
badly under BOTH 3.4 and 4.0 but I guess I should start with the
most reduced
