OK, I've made some headway on this. First, I'd like to thank all those
who have provided input.
It looks like the issue might not be the lack of an additional optimization
option, but the adverse affect of one of the optimizations included by -O2.
I tried a build with -O1 instead and got much bett
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 11:18:53 -0700, Rick Jones wrote:
> My favorite starting point, when I have little else to go on is to try
> to pick something "close" from a SPECint suite and use the settings the
> submittor used for it.
>
> Still would be nice to know if the stuff that was supposed to
My favorite starting point, when I have little else to go on is to try
to pick something "close" from a SPECint suite and use the settings the
submittor used for it.
Still would be nice to know if the stuff that was supposed to be
assembly was still assembly when using icc rather than gcc.
r
On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 14:52:27 +0200, Frank Büttner wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx schrieb:
> > On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 05:00:37PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> >>> Using the Intel 9.1 compiler on an IA64 system the performance of
> >>> AES and (to a lesser extent) other algorithms implemented in
> >>> as
> I don't think -march=pentium4 is going to work on an IA64, and I have my
> doubts about sse3 too.
Yeah, I misread the original post. I still recommend comparing using the
appropriate optimization flags for each compiler. If you're going to compare
them just based on performance, you should allo
Kurt Roeckx schrieb:
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 05:00:37PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>>> Using the Intel 9.1 compiler on an IA64 system the performance of
>>> AES and (to a lesser extent) other algorithms implemented in
>>> assembly language is less than that using gcc. I've included the
>>> spee
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 05:00:37PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> > Using the Intel 9.1 compiler on an IA64 system the performance of
> > AES and (to a lesser extent) other algorithms implemented in
> > assembly language is less than that using gcc. I've included the
> > speed output for several
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 17:00:37 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> > Using the Intel 9.1 compiler on an IA64 system the performance of
> > AES and (to a lesser extent) other algorithms implemented in
> > assembly language is less than that using gcc. I've included the
> > speed output for several o
> Using the Intel 9.1 compiler on an IA64 system the performance of
> AES and (to a lesser extent) other algorithms implemented in
> assembly language is less than that using gcc. I've included the
> speed output for several of the algorithms below.
>
> Is this a know issue and is there a workarou
> Using the Intel 9.1 compiler on an IA64 system the performance of
> AES and (to a lesser extent) other algorithms implemented in
> assembly language is less than that using gcc. I've included the
> speed output for several of the algorithms below.
>
> Is this a know issue and is there a workarou
Iain Morgan wrote:
Hello,
Using the Intel 9.1 compiler on an IA64 system the performance of
AES and (to a lesser extent) other algorithms implemented in
assembly language is less than that using gcc. I've included the
speed output for several of the algorithms below.
Is this a know issue and is
11 matches
Mail list logo
