|Funny? email@example.com (JUKKA) (1997-04-13)|
|Re: Funny? danwang@atomic.CS.Princeton.EDU (1997-04-16)|
|Re: Funny? pfoxSPAMOFF@lehman.com (Paul David Fox) (1997-04-16)|
|Re: Funny? WStreett@shell.monmouth.com.spamguard (1997-04-18)|
|Re: Funny? firstname.lastname@example.org (William D Clinger) (1997-04-18)|
|Re: Funny? email@example.com (1997-04-18)|
|From:||danwang@atomic.CS.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Wang)|
|Date:||16 Apr 1997 00:26:55 -0400|
|Organization:||Princeton University Department of Computer Science|
> I just created a Visual C++ program under Windows 95 which runs
> slower when it is optimised for speed. And which runs faster when
> it is a debug version without any optimisation and lot of extra
> debug code.
Just a guess, but sounds like the optimizer is unrolling some loop so that
the "optimized" code no longer fits in the instruction cache, so you're
paying a cache hit on every loop. The debug version is probably faster since
it fits in the cache.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.