GCC 6.1.0 for MinGW

Since MS-DOS has it’s 6.1.0 I was dying to re-build stuff for 6.1.0.  As I don’t want to build it myself I did mange to find a version on equation.com

I rebuilt Cockatrice III, and that seems to be running fine.

Continuing from my GCC 1.40 on Windows, here is version 6.1.0’s scores:

Dhrystone(1.1) time for 500000000 passes = 53
This machine benchmarks at 9433962 dhrystones/second

Dhrystone(1.1) time for 500000000 passes = 18
This machine benchmarks at 27777777 dhrystones/second

Dhrystone(1.1) time for 500000000 passes = 16
This machine benchmarks at 31250000 dhrystones/second

Dhrystone(1.1) time for 500000000 passes = 13
This machine benchmarks at 38461538 dhrystones/second

As you can see the scores are actually slower than GCC 5.1.0.  Well that was kind of surprising.  Since I almost never read the manual, I did find out about -Ofast vs -O3/-O2, and yes, it is much faster!  So I guess I should recompile everything with GCC 5.1.0 … But I do prefer the diagnostic messages in GCC 6, it’s very CLANG like.

5 thoughts on “GCC 6.1.0 for MinGW

    • just read debian news
      “gcc for i386 has recently been changed
      to target 686-class processors and is generating code that will crash
      on other processors”

      well F, there goes the Quake idea.

      • Its not all that bad!

        • AMD K5, K6, K6-2 (aka K6 3D), K6-3
        • DM&P/SiS Vortex86, Vortex86SX
        • Cyrix III, MediaGX, MediaGXm
        • IDT Winchip C6, Winchip 2
        • Intel Pentium, Pentium with MMX
        • Rise mP6
        • VIA C3 ‘Samuel 2’, C3 ‘Ezra’

        So you have PII onward. A while back I had bench’d Quake with Visual C++, but doing the same with GCC shouldn’t be too hard. I’m not going to even try to build it with GCC 1.4 though. Although I guess if you can convert C++ comments into C comments, maybe it would work? I’m just not manually looking for // to /* */

  1. Quake was originally cross-compiled from GCC 2.7.2, right? (With some hand-written assembly.) So that’s a very weak compiler, comparatively. But then again, I doubt GCC intentionally has improved anything 586-related in decades. I seriously doubt they even test on P4s anymore.

    Bah, just ask your friend (UHexen2 dude) to test for you! If anybody knows, he does. 😉

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *