Re: suggestion to use lzma for snapshots, maybe more?

2010-02-14 Thread Gerald Pfeifer
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, Vincent Lefevre wrote: >> I was idly looking through a couple of snapshots of the gcc -trunk line. >> I am by no means a compiler developer, but I did notice that you aren't >> using lzma for compression. I don't know if bandwidth is at all a >> concern, but I can point to a >

gcc -O1 performs better than gcc -O2

2010-02-14 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Noticed while optimizing crc16 that gcc -O performed much better than gcc -O2 while doing crc16: # > gcc -O1 CRC16.c ;./a.out crc1:f532 crc2:f532 crc16 tv_res:0 :12768 CRC16 tv_res:0 :10795 # > gcc -O2 CRC16.c ;./a.out crc1:f532 crc2:f532 crc16 tv_res:0 :17092 CRC16 tv_res:0 :11581 #> gcc --ve

Re: gcc -O1 performs better than gcc -O2

2010-02-14 Thread Richard Guenther
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > Noticed while optimizing crc16 that gcc -O performed much better > than gcc -O2 while doing crc16: Reducing the noise by adding a loop with trip count 64, making sure my powersaving model is fixed at performance I see -O1: crc1:f532 cr

Re: gcc -O1 performs better than gcc -O2

2010-02-14 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Richard Guenther wrote on 2010/02/14 19:05:24: > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Joakim Tjernlund > wrote: > > > > Noticed while optimizing crc16 that gcc -O performed much better > > than gcc -O2 while doing crc16: > > Reducing the noise by adding a loop with trip count 64, making sure > my p

Re: gcc -O1 performs better than gcc -O2

2010-02-14 Thread Richard Guenther
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 8:06 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > Richard Guenther wrote on 2010/02/14 19:05:24: >> >> On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Joakim Tjernlund >> wrote: >> > >> > Noticed while optimizing crc16 that gcc -O performed much better >> > than gcc -O2 while doing crc16: >> >> Reduci

Re: gcc -O1 performs better than gcc -O2

2010-02-14 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 08:06:20PM +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > the warmup isn't really needed after I added memset and inline or not should > not matter that much are only used once so I think my > conclusion still stands: gcc 4.3.4 is slower with -O2 than -O1 You mean this particular GCC ver

Re: gcc -O1 performs better than gcc -O2

2010-02-14 Thread Bernd Roesch
Hello On 14.02.10, you wrote: > > Glad to hear that newer versions are back on track, does than mean > that this won't be fixed in gcc 4.3.x series? maybe you test the GCC 4.5.0 Version. I notice in zlib (used in PNG image compression) when there is a image that contain lots same pixel values

Re: gcc -O1 performs better than gcc -O2

2010-02-14 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Jakub Jelinek wrote on 2010/02/14 20:21:50: > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 08:06:20PM +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > the warmup isn't really needed after I added memset and inline or not should > > not matter that much are only used once so I think my > > conclusion still stands: gcc 4.3.4 is slo

gcc-4.3-20100214 is now available

2010-02-14 Thread gccadmin
Snapshot gcc-4.3-20100214 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3-20100214/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.3 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches

C++ DR/354

2010-02-14 Thread Magnus Fromreide
Hello. I tried to look at fixing DR/354 but ended up lost in cp/parser.c I have the following test case: template struct S { }; S<(int*)0> s; and end up with the following errors :2:9: error: a cast to a type other than an integral or enumeration type cannot appear in a constant-expression :2