Before deciding that the compiler is the answer...profile. Where is the bottleneck?
--Tim On Tuesday, April 28, 2015 05:39:21 AM Ángel de Vicente wrote: > Hi, > > Ángel de Vicente writes: > > Now I have two more questions, to see if I can get better performance: > > > > > > 1) I'm just running the Julia distribuation that came with my Ubuntu > > distro. I don't know how this was compiled. Is there a way to see > > which optimization level and which compiler options were used when > > compiling Julia? Would I be able to get better performance out of > > Julia if I do my own compilation from source? (either using a high > > optimization flag or perhaps even using another compiler (I have > > access to the Intel compilers suite here). > > regarding this, I downloaded Julia source and I compiled it with the > default makefiles (gfortran and optimization -O3 as far as I can see), > and there was no important time difference. > > I tried to compile with Intel compilers by creating the Make.user file > with the following content > > ,---- > > | USEICC=1 > | USEIFC=1 > | USE_INTEL_LIBM=1 > > `---- > > but it failed, with the following error: > > ,---- > > | Making all in src > | /usr/include/c++/4.8/string( > > 38): catastrophic error: cannot open source > > | file "bits/c++config.h" > | > | #include <bits/c++config.h> > | > | ^ > | > | compilation aborted for patchelf.cc (code 4) > > `---- > > Any hints on getting it compiled with the Intel compilers? > > > 2) Is it possible to give optimization flags somehow to the JIT > > compiler? In this case I know that the main_loop function is crucial, > > and it is going to be executed hundreds/thousands of times, so I > > wouldn't mind spending more time the first time it is compiled if it > > can be optimized as much as possible. > > I looked around the Julia documentation, but saw nothing, so perhaps > this is not possible at all? > > Thanks,
