Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 21:54:10 +0100 (MET) From: Andreas Klemm <andreas@knobel.gun.de> To: jdp@polstra.com (John Polstra) Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: dhrystone 2.1 result for gcc-2.7.2 with Pentium patches is poor Message-ID: <199601232054.VAA02000@knobel.gun.de> In-Reply-To: <199601231657.IAA14392@austin.polstra.com> from "John Polstra" at Jan 23, 96 08:57:41 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I haven't tried those patches, but this kind of thing comes up regularly
> in compiler-related newsgroups. Look: the Dhrystone "benchmark" is
> _completely_ worthless and meaningless for today's compilers. You are
> wasting your time messing with it. It will only mislead you.
Ok, but then please tell me another easy way how I can proofe the
quality of the resulting code...
I simply thought, that _if_ there are patches for gcc, that add support
for a Pentium processor, then nearly every kind of executable should
speed up because gcc now uses the whole power of ... hmmm let's say
instruction set.
I really didn't expect slower results. Please explain to me why
you think, that those Pertium patches are possibly really ok
if the dhrystone result is relatively poor.
Andreas ///
--
andreas@knobel.gun.de /\/\___ Wiechers & Partner Datentechnik GmbH
Andreas Klemm ___/\/\/ - Support Unix - aklemm@wup.de -
\/
ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/system/Printing/aps-491.tgz
apsfilter - magic print filter 4lpd >>> knobel is powered by FreeBSD <<<
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199601232054.VAA02000>