On 14 June 2010 22:59, Francesc Alted <fal...@pytables.org> wrote: >> Still working on OSX, with some minor performance improvements: >> >> CPU: Core 2 Duo 2.8 GHz >> OS: OS X 10.6.3 >> Compilers - hardsuite: >> >> Previous tests: >> GCC 4.0 Elapsed time: 6409.3 s, 444.3 MB/s >> GCC 4.2 Elapsed time: 4108.4 s, 693.1 MB/s >> GCC 4.5 Elapsed time: 3632.0 s, 784.0 MB/s >> Clang Elapsed time: 4849.8 s, 587.1 MB/s >> >> Current tests: >> GCC 4.0 Elapsed time: 5944.9 s, 456.2 MB/s >> GCC 4.2 Elapsed time: 3838.5 s, 706.5 MB/s >> GCC 4.5 Elapsed time: 3377.2 s, 803.0 MB/s >> Clang Elapsed time: 4438.9 s, 610.9 MB/s > > Mmh, these improvements are consequence of fine-tuning in compiler flags or > due only to the recent changes in Blosc? If the later, I would not expect > that, so it's a welcome surprise!
No, same compiler flags for GCC, I tried many different ones for Clang but they seem to do very little. >> I think I'll have to revisit my practice of using GCC 4.0 for everything. > > Well, out of curiosity, I've tried gcc 4.5 in my openSUSE/Core2 box, but I > have not noticed an important improvement with respect to the original gcc > 4.4. The bump in optimization should have occurred somewhere between GCC 4.2 > and 4.4. Anyway, using 4.0 creates clear quite unoptimized binaries in Mac > OSX (at least when using Blosc). I just realised that GCC 4.0 creates 32-bit binaries by default (which is why it plays nicely with many python packages). Would a 64-bit build benefit blosc in particular? Tony ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ThinkGeek and WIRED's GeekDad team up for the Ultimate GeekDad Father's Day Giveaway. ONE MASSIVE PRIZE to the lucky parental unit. See the prize list and enter to win: http://p.sf.net/sfu/thinkgeek-promo _______________________________________________ Pytables-users mailing list Pytables-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pytables-users
