Re: [Mingw-users] Mingw Optimization.

[Earnie B. <ear...@ya...>]

Remember that one of the problems with proving MinGW optimization
effects are the static libraries of GCC itself and any user added which
are optimized only for i386.

Earnie.

Wu Yongwei wrote:
> 
> You two executables are nearly as fast, but both of them are slower than my
> executables on my Windows 2000 box.
> 
> However, the key is that optimization is really not in full effect in such a
> simple program.
> 
> If you want, I can mail my executables to you personally. But I don't think
> it very important.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Wu Yongwei
> 
> --- Original Message from Sternbach, William [IT] ---
> 
> Wu,
> 
> I've attached a zip file which contains 3 files:
> 
> fpall2.c  is the source code.
> fpall2_G.exe is the optimized EXE frile from GCC version 2.95.2
>                  run with gcc -O3 -mpentium
> fpall2_M.exe is the optimized EXE file from MSVC Version 5
>                  run with cl /O2x /G5
> 
> Please run these EXE's on your Celeron 550 MHZ processor.
> They should show that gcc 2.95.2's optimized EXE runs faster
> than Microsoft's optimized EXE.
> 
>  <<FPALL2.ZIP>>
> 
> Also, please compile with gcc 3.1 with options:
> gcc -O9 -mpentium, zip the EXE file (because my mail system doesn't
> allow EXE's to be attached to Emails due to virus worries),
> and then please send me the Zip file so I can see if gcc 3.1 produces
> more fast running optimized EXE file than gcc 2.95.2 and MSVC.
> 
> Thanks in advance for your Email reply.
> 
> - Bill
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Welcome to geek heaven.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> _______________________________________________
> MinGW-users mailing list
> Min...@li...
> 
> You may change your MinGW Account Options or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-users