Duncan wrote:
Has anyone done a study of -Os vs -O2 with gcc-4.3.x,
Just a quick note while on the subject : -Os is known to break some
packages.
Although it has been a while since I've last had a full -Os system,
there was a time when -Os was a _very_bad_idea_. That's why the Gnome
Herd
I actually know somebody working at intel, maybe he can get them more involved.
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
BTW: Is ICC really worth the fuss ?
I have checked around and reported that newest gcc-4.3 is able to to
catch and sometimes even outperform icc ( not always, naturally).
Big news seemed to be thatnew gcc si close and sometimes better than icc.
Is it any truth to that and if it is, what is
GCC 4.3 is catching up, but they are no where near utilizing SSE4 or SSE5
instructions.
http://blog.alphagemini.org/2008/03/icc-vs-gcc-43.html
He concludes that it's not worth pursuing, but I beg to differ. Those are
signifcant differences for a processor.
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:24:58 -0400 (EDT)
Adam Stylinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
GCC 4.3 is catching up, but they are no where near utilizing SSE4 or
SSE5 instructions.
http://blog.alphagemini.org/2008/03/icc-vs-gcc-43.html
He concludes that it's not worth pursuing, but I beg to differ.
He's also doing it on a core 2 duo. It would be interesting to compare this
with some mildly legacy hardware (netburst pipelines) in order to see whether
GCC does a comparable job. My guess would be no, seeing as netburst was
extremely ugly and complicated, only intel would be able to write a
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
The more interesting question, then, is whether users run any
non-trivial cpu-bound programs. We know the applied science types do,
but they tend to be the ones who're doing clever things with icc
anyway. What about normal users?
I'm sure they do on some occasion if
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:34:53 -0400
Richard Freeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
The more interesting question, then, is whether users run any
non-trivial cpu-bound programs. We know the applied science types
do, but they tend to be the ones who're doing clever things with
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
How much of that is memory bound? Of the things that aren't, how many
aren't written in assembly anyway? Of those things, what proportion of
the runtime is spent in those areas?
If you double the speed of something that takes up 2% of the overall
execution time, you
Perhaps we could write a script that compiles packages in portage with both ICC
and GCC and runs them with different flags. I think there was an effort on the
GCC side already to test flags with specific packages. We can then have the
script run time on the applications doing work (again,
10 matches
Mail list logo
