Snapshot gcc-4.1-20051105 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.1-20051105/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.1 SVN branch
with the following options: /trunk
You'll find:
gc
Hello,
any specific reason why we still don't unroll loops by default at -O3? It
looks like it gives better results on most benchmark, and many people use it
always together with -O3 to say "really optimize, I mean it".
Giovanni Bajo
Index: opts.c
==
Giovanni Bajo wrote:
Hello,
any specific reason why we still don't unroll loops by default at -O3? It
looks like it gives better results on most benchmark, and many people use it
always together with -O3 to say "really optimize, I mean it".
Why O3 rather than O2, I thought O3 was just O2 + imp
> Sorry for these stupid errors, I should really have read that one
> through one more time before posting. Attached is an updated version
> with both errors corrected. OK?
That doesn't work for me on Solaris when there is no static glibc (e.g. 64-bit
mode on Solaris 9):
check_effective_target_s
On Saturday 05 November 2005 18:54, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> any specific reason why we still don't unroll loops by default at -O3? It
> looks like it gives better results on most benchmark, and many people use
> it always together with -O3 to say "really optimize, I mean it".
One reason
> Why O3 rather than O2, I thought O3 was just O2 + implicit inlining
In the old days only, i.e. that has not been true since 3.1 at least.
--
Eric Botcazou
Steven Bosscher wrote:
One reason why it's not enabled is because it causes a huge compile time
regression.
For the majority of Ada applications, as opposed to specific bench marks,
we see little gain in -O2 over -O1 in any case, although that's for GCC 3.4
and it is always possible that GCC 4
Eric Botcazou wrote:
Why O3 rather than O2, I thought O3 was just O2 + implicit inlining
In the old days only, i.e. that has not been true since 3.1 at least.
OK, so perhaps we should routinely recommend -O3 -fno-inline (I trust
that turns off only the automatic inlining, and not the explici
On Saturday 05 November 2005 19:11, Robert Dewar wrote:
> I guess the issue is what does "huge" mean, it is hard to discuss based
> on loaded adjectives taking the place of data :-)
Huge here means 15-20% on x86* hosts.
Gr.
Steven
Hi,
I'd like to contribute to the development of gfortran and for that, it
appears that filling a copyright assignment form is mandatory. Can
someone tell me where to get this?
Thanks.
--
Pierre-Matthieu Anglade
Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I guess the issue is what does "huge" mean, it is hard to discuss based
>> on loaded adjectives taking the place of data :-)
>
> Huge here means 15-20% on x86* hosts.
I don't consider this huge for -O3. I think -O3 can be slower if it achieves
better
>
> Eric Botcazou wrote:
> >>Why O3 rather than O2, I thought O3 was just O2 + implicit inlining
>
> > In the old days only, i.e. that has not been true since 3.1 at least.
>
> OK, so perhaps we should routinely recommend -O3 -fno-inline (I trust
> that turns off only the automatic inlining, and
On 11/5/05, Giovanni Bajo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> I guess the issue is what does "huge" mean, it is hard to discuss based
> >> on loaded adjectives taking the place of data :-)
> >
> > Huge here means 15-20% on x86* hosts.
>
> I don't consider
Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I guess the issue is what does "huge" mean, it is hard to discuss based
on loaded adjectives taking the place of data :-)
>>>
>>> Huge here means 15-20% on x86* hosts.
>>
>> I don't consider this huge for -O3. I think -O3 can be slower if it
>>
On 11/5/05, Giovanni Bajo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I guess the issue is what does "huge" mean, it is hard to discuss based
> on loaded adjectives taking the place of data :-)
> >>>
> >>> Huge here means 15-20% on x86* hosts.
> >>
> >> I
Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> My feeling is that -funroll-loops is almost always an improvement. It
might
>> be false sometimes, but this can be said of many optimization passes.
>
> Can you back up this feeling with numbers? SPEC -O2
vs. -O2 -funroll-loops
> and/or -O3 vs. -O3 -
>
> Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> My feeling is that -funroll-loops is almost always an improvement. It
> might
> >> be false sometimes, but this can be said of many optimization passes.
> >
> > Can you back up this feeling with numbers? SPEC -O2
> vs. -O2 -funroll-loops
> >
Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Note I proposed it and I don't think it is correct at this late
> stage into 4.1's release and it is not a bug fix either.
I never mentioned 4.1. Consider this patch proposed for 4.2.
--
Giovanni Bajo
On Saturday 05 November 2005 19:49, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> My feeling is that -funroll-loops is almost always an improvement. It might
> be false sometimes, but this can be said of many optimization passes.
You can't enable an option based on a feeling ;-)
Gr.
Steven
Hi,
The -fvisibility feature in GCC 4.0 is a really useful way of hiding all
non-public symbols in a dynamic shared object.
While I'm aware of a patch which backports this feature to GCC 3.4 (over at
nedprod.com), I was wondering whether there is a similar patch available for
GCC 3.3. I'm aware t
Giovanni Bajo wrote:
Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I guess the issue is what does "huge" mean, it is hard to discuss based
on loaded adjectives taking the place of data :-)
Huge here means 15-20% on x86* hosts.
I don't consider this huge for -O3. I think -O3 can be slower if
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Paolo, who made the first paid computer work on Realia COBOL
well that is fun ... quite a while ago :-)
On Sunday 06 November 2005 01:12, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> > Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>I guess the issue is what does "huge" mean, it is hard to discuss based
> >>>on loaded adjectives taking the place of data :-)
> >>
> >>Huge here means 15-20% on x86* hos
Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I guess the issue is what does "huge" mean, it is hard to discuss
> based on loaded adjectives taking the place of data :-)
Huge here means 15-20% on x86* hosts.
>>>
>>> I don't consider t
Steven Bosscher wrote:
You must not have been paying attention to one of the most frequent
complaints about gcc, which is that it is dog slow already ;-)
Sure, but to me -O2 says you don't care much about compilation time.
As I say for complete large applications, I am not sure -O2 gains
that
Giovanni Bajo wrote:
I believe you are missing my point. What is the GCC command line option for
"try to optimize as best as you can, please, I don't care compiletime"? I
believe that should be -O3. Otherwise let's make -O4. Or -O666. The only real
argument I heard till now is that -funroll-loop
Hello!
That's probably an old problem, but I haven't found any notion of
it in GCC docs. So...
I need to have a macro which takes ONE argument, and either
ignores it or outputs a "=arg":
#ifdef __SOMEFILE_C
#define D
#define V(value) = value
#else
#define D extern
#define
1. Output from running srcdir/config.guess:
i686-pc-linux-gnu
2. The output of gcc -v for my newly installed gcc:
Reading specs from
/opt/gcc-3.3.6/lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-linux-gnu/3.3.6/specs
Configured with: ../gcc-3.3.6/configure --prefix=/opt/gcc-3.3.6
--enable-shared --enable-threads=posix --
28 matches
Mail list logo
