On 1/2/06, Damjan Perenic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > When I run oopack and stepanov last time (admittedly, quite some time > ago) > though both compilers, I got results the other way around on both, > x86 and SPARC. > > As I remember, the difference in C was not big at all. Sun Studio > was a bit faster on SPARC and a bit slower on x86. But it was C++ > where the difference was big in favour on gcc. > > Here are some C/C++ benchmarks, like oopack and stepanov, which have > same routines written in C and C++ language. > http://annwm.lbl.gov/bench/ > http://www.ratol.fi/~sfarin/cpp-bench/ > > Things have probably changed since then as there were major compiler > releases since then. Maybe it would be a good time to rerun it with > Sun Studio 11 (-fast) and equivalent on gcc 4.0 (-O3 -ffast-math > -funroll-loops -mcpu=ultrasparc3 -m64 -mvis -ftree-vectorize). > And after all, they are still just benchmarks. Results could be the > other way around with different benchmarks as seen in your case.
-fast is not the fastest option on either SPARC or X86. he who uses -fast shall be disappointed. :-) it actually generates significantly _slower_ code than other options (which require more work because they need to be written out). --Stefan -- Stefan Teleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
