Paolo Bonzini wrote:
GCC 3.x should be in the same ballpark as 2.95.
I have not found this to be true. I tried multiple times (gcc 3.1, 3.3 and 3.4) and each time the resulting VM was *significantly* slower than 2.95.2.
Cheers, - Andreas
GCC 3.3 on power pc gives best figures as compared to 3.1, 2.95 or 4.01 however since this is intel your milage will vary,
Also setting -mtune= -march= optimizes/de-optimizes decisions too.
On Apr 11, 2008, at 8:57 AM, Andreas Raab wrote:
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
GCC 3.x should be in the same ballpark as 2.95.
I have not found this to be true. I tried multiple times (gcc 3.1, 3.3 and 3.4) and each time the resulting VM was *significantly* slower than 2.95.2.
Cheers,
- Andreas
-- = = = ======================================================================== John M. McIntosh johnmci@smalltalkconsulting.com Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com = = = ========================================================================
2008/4/11 Andreas Raab andreas.raab@gmx.de:
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
GCC 3.x should be in the same ballpark as 2.95.
I have not found this to be true. I tried multiple times (gcc 3.1, 3.3 and 3.4) and each time the resulting VM was *significantly* slower than 2.95.2.
Same here. I adopted makefile for HydraVM to build it with latest GCC in mingw distro (3.4.2) and resulting build behaves much slower than built with 2.95.
Cheers,
- Andreas
vm-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Andreas Raab -
Igor Stasenko -
John M McIntosh