Re: [BENCHMARK] Corrected gcc3.2 v gcc2.95.3 contest results

[Jakub Jelinek]

On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 12:24:49AM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> That is the system I was considering. I just need to run enough benchmarks to
> make this worthwhile though. That means about 5 for each it seems - which may
> take me a while. A basic mean will suffice for a measure of central tendency. I
> also need to quote some measure of variability. Standard deviation?

BTW: Have you tried gcc 3.2 with say -finline-limit=2000 too?
By default gcc 3.2 has for usual C code smaller inlining cutoff, so the IO
difference might as well be because some important, but big function was
inlined by 2.95.x and not by 3.2.x. On the other side there is
__attribute__((always_inline)) which you can use to tell gcc you don't
want any cutoff for a particular function.

	Jakub