From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Jan 5 19:16: 3 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 049D737B401 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 19:16:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from HAL9000.homeunix.com (12-233-57-224.client.attbi.com [12.233.57.224]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7519D43EB2 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 19:16:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dschultz@uclink.Berkeley.EDU) Received: from HAL9000.homeunix.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by HAL9000.homeunix.com (8.12.6/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h063G0N7002091; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 19:16:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dschultz@uclink.Berkeley.EDU) Received: (from das@localhost) by HAL9000.homeunix.com (8.12.6/8.12.5/Submit) id h063FthO002090; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 19:15:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dschultz@uclink.Berkeley.EDU) Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 19:15:55 -0800 From: David Schultz To: Brett Glass Cc: Rahul Siddharthan , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter Message-ID: <20030106031555.GB1938@HAL9000.homeunix.com> Mail-Followup-To: Brett Glass , Rahul Siddharthan , chat@FreeBSD.ORG References: <4.3.2.7.2.20030104112015.026a5530@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20030104201251.029387d0@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20030104201251.029387d0@localhost> Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Thus spake Brett Glass : > At 04:25 PM 1/4/2003, Rahul Siddharthan wrote: > > >GCC 3.2.1 seems to perform around as well, on my code, as Intel's > >compiler. > > Depends on your code. A program consisting mostly of function calls > isn't going to be much of a challenge for any compiler. But try some > serious nested loops, or floating point, and GCC generates about the > most naive code you could imagine. You could do better dashing it off > in assembly language. My own experience has been that recent versions of GCC 2 botch floating point horribly. Any time the compiler encounters code containing floating point, it starts managing the stack and registers poorly, it doesn't find loop invariants anymore, and other optimiztions go out the window. However, GCC 3 fixes all of these problems in the examples I have tried, so evidently the developers did something right. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message