Dave Rivers wrote: > One of the tests was the typical dhrystone test... that's > the one I had numbers reported for.
Well, dhrystone has a so small working set that this shouldn't really affect anything. The problem with dhrystone is really that its main loop actually doesn't *do* anything, and the performance of the resulting executable tends to be dominated by just how good the compiler was in detecting what it could simply omit :-/ I just noticed that dhrystone performance nearly doubled between gcc 3.3 and 3.4 with -O3, but this turned out to be simply due to the fact that 3.4 managed to inline everything into main due to better inlining heuristics, which in turn allowed much more aggressive dead code detection. Bye, Ulrich -- Dr. Ulrich Weigand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
