public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Momchil Velikov <velco@fadata.bg>
To: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>
Cc: Dave Jones <davej@suse.de>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	lse-tech <lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] gcc 2.95 vs 3.21 performance
Date: 10 Feb 2003 14:13:08 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87y94owcyz.fsf@fadata.bg> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <172980000.1044373858@[10.10.2.4]>

>>>>> "Martin" == Martin J Bligh <mbligh@aracnet.com> writes:

    Martin> But the point is still the same ... even if it is doing
    Martin> more agressive optimisation, it's not actually buying us
    Martin> anything (at least for the kernel)

which might be due in part to ``-fno-strict-aliasing'' used to compile
the Linux kernel.

~velco

  reply	other threads:[~2003-02-10 12:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 67+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-02-03 23:05 gcc 2.95 vs 3.21 performance Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-03 23:22 ` [Lse-tech] " Andi Kleen
2003-02-03 23:31 ` Richard B. Johnson
2003-02-04  0:43   ` J.A. Magallon
2003-02-04 13:42     ` Richard B. Johnson
2003-02-04 14:20       ` John Bradford
2003-02-04  6:54   ` Denis Vlasenko
2003-02-04  7:13     ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-04 12:25       ` Adrian Bunk
2003-02-04 15:51         ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-04 16:27           ` [Lse-tech] " Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-04 17:40             ` Patrick Mansfield
2003-02-04 17:55               ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-04  9:54     ` Bryan Andersen
2003-02-04 15:46       ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-04 19:09     ` Timothy D. Witham
2003-02-04 19:35       ` John Bradford
2003-02-04 19:44         ` Dave Jones
2003-02-04 20:11           ` John Bradford
2003-02-04 20:20             ` John Bradford
2003-02-04 20:45             ` Herman Oosthuysen
2003-02-04 21:44               ` Timothy D. Witham
2003-02-05  7:15               ` Denis Vlasenko
2003-02-05 10:36                 ` Andreas Schwab
2003-02-05 11:41                   ` Denis Vlasenko
2003-02-05 12:20                     ` Dave Jones
2003-02-05 13:10                     ` [Lse-tech] " Dipankar Sarma
2003-02-05 15:30                 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-04 21:38         ` Linus Torvalds
2003-02-04 21:54           ` John Bradford
2003-02-04 22:11             ` Linus Torvalds
2003-02-04 23:27               ` Timothy D. Witham
2003-02-04 23:21           ` Larry McVoy
2003-02-04 23:42             ` b_adlakha
2003-02-05  0:19               ` Andy Pfiffer
2003-02-04 23:51             ` Jakob Oestergaard
2003-02-05  1:03               ` Hugo Mills
2003-02-10 22:26               ` Andrea Arcangeli
2003-02-10 23:28                 ` J.A. Magallon
2003-02-04 23:51             ` Eli Carter
2003-02-05  0:27               ` Larry McVoy
2003-02-06 20:42                 ` Paul Jakma
2003-02-05  3:03             ` Tomas Szepe
2003-02-05  6:03             ` Mark Mielke
2003-02-07 16:09           ` Pavel Machek
2003-02-04 10:57   ` Padraig
2003-02-04 13:11     ` Helge Hafting
2003-02-04 13:29       ` Jörn Engel
2003-02-04 14:05       ` P
2003-02-04 20:36         ` Herman Oosthuysen
2003-02-04 12:20 ` [Lse-tech] " Dave Jones
2003-02-04 15:50   ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-10 12:13     ` Momchil Velikov [this message]
2003-02-06 15:42 ` gcc -O2 vs gcc -Os performance Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-06 15:51   ` [Lse-tech] " Andi Kleen
2003-02-06 17:48   ` Alan Cox
2003-02-06 17:06     ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-06 20:38     ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-06 21:32       ` John Bradford
2003-02-06 22:12       ` Linus Torvalds
2003-02-06 22:58         ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-06 23:16           ` Linus Torvalds
2003-02-06 23:59             ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-06 23:17       ` Roger Larsson
2003-02-06 23:33         ` Martin J. Bligh
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-02-10 20:13 [Lse-tech] gcc 2.95 vs 3.21 performance Albert Cahalan
2003-02-10 20:49 ` Falk Hueffner

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=87y94owcyz.fsf@fadata.bg \
    --to=velco@fadata.bg \
    --cc=davej@suse.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=mbligh@aracnet.com \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox