Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1998-31,: Re: gcc 2.7.1

# Re: gcc 2.7.1

Horst von Brand (vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl)
Thu, 06 Aug 1998 08:17:42 -0400

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Andi Kleen: "Re: 2.1.115-4 and SPARC64"
- Previous message: Meelis Roos: "Re: problem with 114 sched.* changes (not the gcc one)"
- Maybe in reply to: Etienne Lorrain: "gcc 2.7.1"
- Next in thread: Andrew Derrick Balsa: "Re: gcc 2.7.1"

Henrik Olsen <henrik@iaeste.dk> said:
> On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, Etienne Lorrain wrote:
> > > Maybe it is time to upgrade to gcc-2.7.3, so that this patch could
> > > be applied in the main stream :

> > Do you have numbers for the effect of "-fno-strength-reduce"? Back when I
> > added it I couldn't see any difference at all to any benchmarks, so I've
> > had no real incentive to even try to remove it.

I might be dead wrong on this, but AFAIR the change in 2.7.2.3 was just to
remove support for -fstrength-reduce from the compiler; or at least remove
it from all loops.

> > Does anybody have any numbers that show that it actually matters for the
> > kernel (I know it matters a lot for some other things, but I'm looking for
> > something that really makes a difference in kernel-land)?

> Just tested the effect of -fno-strength-reduce on the standard Linux
> benchmark, compiling the kernel, measuring with time:)

> [No noticeable change]

Have you tried newer compilers, e.g. latest egcs snapshot?

Just idle curiosity...

    --
    Dr. Horst H. von Brand                       mailto:vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl
    Departamento de Informatica                     Fono: +56 32 654431
    Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria              +56 32 654239
    Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile                Fax:  +56 32 797513

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html

- Next message: Andi Kleen: "Re: 2.1.115-4 and SPARC64"
- Previous message: Meelis Roos: "Re: problem with 114 sched.* changes (not the gcc one)"
- Maybe in reply to: Etienne Lorrain: "gcc 2.7.1"
- Next in thread: Andrew Derrick Balsa: "Re: gcc 2.7.1"