Bob Friesenhahn <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 29 May 2012, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > > > You seem to miss, that compiling Schillix-ON on Intel/AMD based HW takes 18 > > Ghz > > hours while compiling the same on Sparc only takes 16 GHz hours. So Sparc is > > still more effective per clock cycle than intel/amd. > > SPARC is still a good architecture and surely better designed from the > start than x86, which has an architecture which is traceable across 8, > 16, 32, and now 64-bit CPUs. Your evaluation criteria is highly > dependent on how much work the compiler needs to do to produce good > code.
I thought that optimizing for Sparc is a harder job than doing the same for Intel. Do you believe otherwise? Jörg -- EMail:[email protected] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [email protected] (uni) [email protected] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ------------------------------------------- illumos-discuss Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/182180/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/182180/21175430-2e6923be Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21175430&id_secret=21175430-6a77cda4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
