From: Benoit Poulot-Cazajous <poulot@ifrance.com>
To: "M. R. Brown" <mrbrown@0xd6.org>
Cc: nbecker@fred.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: On K7, -march=k6 is good (Was Re: Why no -march=athlon?)
Date: 19 Dec 2001 18:46:13 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <lnitb3drx6.fsf_-_@walhalla.agaha> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <x88r8ptki37.fsf@rpppc1.hns.com> <20011217174020.GA24772@0xd6.org>
In-Reply-To: <20011217174020.GA24772@0xd6.org>
"M. R. Brown" <mrbrown@0xd6.org> writes:
> * nbecker@fred.net <nbecker@fred.net> on Mon, Dec 17, 2001:
>
> > I noticed that linux/arch/i386/Makefile says:
> >
> > ifdef CONFIG_MK7
> > CFLAGS += -march=i686 -malign-functions=4
> > endif
> >
> >
> > Why not -march=athlon? Is this just for compatibility with old gcc?
>
> The recommend kernel compiler is gcc 2.95.x, which doesn't support
> "-march=athlon".
But gcc-2.95,x _supports_ "-march=k6", and we should use that instead of
"-march-i686".
Obvious patch for 2.4.16 :
--- linux-2.4.16/arch/i386/Makefile Thu Apr 12 21:20:31 2001
+++ linux-2.4.16-bpc/arch/i386/Makefile Sun Dec 16 15:44:06 2001
@@ -63,7 +63,7 @@
endif
ifdef CONFIG_MK7
-CFLAGS += $(shell if $(CC) -march=athlon -S -o /dev/null -xc /dev/null >/dev/null 2>&1; then echo "-march=athlon"; else echo "-march=i686 -malign-functions=4"; fi)
+CFLAGS += $(shell if $(CC) -march=athlon -S -o /dev/null -xc /dev/null >/dev/null 2>&1; then echo "-march=athlon"; elif $(CC) -march=k6 -S -o /dev/null -xc /dev/null >/dev/null 2>&1; then echo "-march=k6 -malign-functions=4"; else echo "-march=i686 -malign-functions=4"; fi)
endif
ifdef CONFIG_MCRUSOE
I have tested this change, using 3 steps of the ChorusOS compilation
as benchmarks (The test first bootstrap gcc, then compiles various
cross-compilers in parallel and then uses them to build ChorusOS for
various architectures). On my XP1800+, it gives :
before the patch :
1017.92user 261.80system 24:39.89elapsed 86%CPU
706.33user 160.79system 16:23.61elapsed 88%CPU
1787.38user 418.76system 43:35.97elapsed 84%CPU
after the patch :
1018.42user 253.85system 24:44.68elapsed 85%CPU
704.89user 151.76system 16:16.14elapsed 87%CPU
1786.96user 410.76system 43:05.32elapsed 85%CPU
The improvement in system time is nice.
-- Benoit
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-12-19 17:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-12-17 14:59 Why no -march=athlon? nbecker
2001-12-17 15:54 ` Dominik Mierzejewski
2001-12-17 17:40 ` M. R. Brown
2001-12-19 17:46 ` Benoit Poulot-Cazajous [this message]
2001-12-19 17:56 ` On K7, -march=k6 is good (Was Re: Why no -march=athlon?) M. R. Brown
2001-12-19 18:39 ` nbecker
2001-12-19 18:47 ` M. R. Brown
2001-12-19 18:52 ` J Sloan
2001-12-19 19:01 ` Josh McKinney
2001-12-19 19:21 ` M. R. Brown
2001-12-19 19:28 ` J Sloan
2001-12-19 19:38 ` Allan Sandfeld
2001-12-19 21:40 ` Benoit Poulot-Cazajous
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-12-19 20:33 RaúlNúñez de Arenas Coronado
2001-12-20 0:06 ` Alessandro Suardi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=lnitb3drx6.fsf_-_@walhalla.agaha \
--to=poulot@ifrance.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mrbrown@0xd6.org \
--cc=nbecker@fred.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.