Re: gcc 3.2 not faster
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 17:00, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 03:38:04PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote:
> >I thought that gcc 3.2 was supposed to be faster, however I have just done
> >some benchmarks to show the opposite:
> >
> >GCC 2.95:
> >Version 1.93b write read putcNT getcNT putc getc putcU
> > getcU lyta 437 559 9052 9478 1694 1734
> > 24757 48029
> >
> >GCC 3.2:
> >Version 1.93b write read putcNT getcNT putc getc putcU
> > getcU 441 568 7955 8573 1617 1698 18731 28544
>
> It's helpful when posting benchmarks to give some indication of what the
> numbers represent. Is it operations per time? Or elapsed seconds? Or
> bogomips?
Thousands of operations per second.
The "default" for reporting any benchmark results is that bigger numbers are
better.
The relevant fact here is not the absolute numbers, but the fact that GCC 3.2
produces code that is slower.
I wonder what will happen when libc6 is compiled with GCC 3.2... For
getc/putc operations what happens in the libc6 is more complex than what
happens in the application. If the same performance hit occurs when
compiling libc6 then things will really suck, and I'll probably get CC'd on
some more amusing flame-wars.
--
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Reply to: