From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 24 Jun 2001 19:16:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 24 Jun 2001 19:16:11 -0400 Received: from humbolt.nl.linux.org ([131.211.28.48]:34314 "EHLO humbolt.nl.linux.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 24 Jun 2001 19:16:06 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Daniel Phillips To: "Alexander V. Bilichenko" , Subject: Re: GCC3.0 Produce REALLY slower code! Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 01:19:06 +0200 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] In-Reply-To: <001301c0fcff$47c05160$d55355c2@microsoft> In-Reply-To: <001301c0fcff$47c05160$d55355c2@microsoft> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <0106250119060G.00430@starship> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Monday 25 June 2001 00:44, Alexander V. Bilichenko wrote: > Hello All! > Some tests that I have recently check out. > kernel compiled with 3.0 (2.4.5) function call: 1000000 iteration. 3% > slower than 2.95. > test example - hash table add/remove - 4% slower (compiled both > with -O2 -march=i686). > Why have this version been released? > Best regards, > Alexander mailto:dmor@7ka.mipt.ru Err, thanks for the benchmarks, but how does this qualify as 'really' slower? Disassemblies of the inner loops would be very informative. -- Daniel