Re: [OT] gcc 2.95.2 vs. 3.0 (fwd)

From: J . A . Magallon (jamagallon@able.es)
Date: Sun Jun 24 2001 - 17:48:22 EST

Next message: Alexander V. Bilichenko: "GCC3.0 Produce REALLY slower code!"
Previous message: Chris Meadors: "Re: Microsoft and Xenix."
In reply to: Sasi Peter: "[OT] gcc 2.95.2 vs. 3.0 (fwd)"
Next in thread: Sasi Peter: "Re: [OT] gcc 2.95.2 vs. 3.0 (fwd)"
Reply: Sasi Peter: "Re: [OT] gcc 2.95.2 vs. 3.0 (fwd)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On 20010624 Sasi Peter wrote:
>
>I know opendivx code is not like kernel code at all, but on the other hand
>it is well suited for benchmark testing.
>
>
>test file: (opendivx with postprocessing, this stuff is written in C)
># mplayer -osdlevel 0 -nosound -benchmark 1800.avi -vo null -pp 15
>VIDEO: [divx] 640x352 24bpp 23.98 fps 1865.1 kbps (227.7 kbyte/s)
>

Sure it is opendivx ? I think you are just using gcc compiled code for
the 'interface' and 'glue' to windows divx decoders (/usr/lib/win32/*.dll)
that do the real hard work.

Redo the tests with am MPEG2 movie.

-- 
J.A. Magallon                           #  Let the source be with you...        
mailto:jamagallon@able.es
Mandrake Linux release 8.1 (Cooker) for i586
Linux werewolf 2.4.5-ac17 #2 SMP Fri Jun 22 01:36:07 CEST 2001 i686
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Alexander V. Bilichenko: "GCC3.0 Produce REALLY slower code!"
Previous message: Chris Meadors: "Re: Microsoft and Xenix."
In reply to: Sasi Peter: "[OT] gcc 2.95.2 vs. 3.0 (fwd)"
Next in thread: Sasi Peter: "Re: [OT] gcc 2.95.2 vs. 3.0 (fwd)"
Reply: Sasi Peter: "Re: [OT] gcc 2.95.2 vs. 3.0 (fwd)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 30 2001 - 21:00:10 EST