Just a suggestion from working with an assembly language stepper from a
while back with Intel x86...lost to an HD crash, but couldn't you
disassemble the binary, run through the assembly, and look for specific
instructions that you could refine into a simpler, smaller cycling time to
improve upon w
Le Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:08:32 -0400,
David Malcolm a écrit :
>
> How did this thread go from:
> "for OS X, GCC 4.8.1 gives you significantly faster machine code
>than the system GCC 4.2.1"
> to
> "let's just use clang"
> ?
>
> Presumably if you want the faster possible machine code for th
On 22 Jul, 2013, at 17:08, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-22 at 09:32 +0200, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 16:36:35 -0700
Raymond Hettinger
On Mon, 2013-07-22 at 17:15 +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:08:32 -0400,
> David Malcolm a écrit :
> >
> > How did this thread go from:
> > "for OS X, GCC 4.8.1 gives you significantly faster machine code
> >than the system GCC 4.2.1"
> > to
> > "let's just use clang
On Mon, 2013-07-22 at 09:32 +0200, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> >> On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 16:36:35 -0700
> >> Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> >>> Our current Mac OS X builds use GCC-4.2
Quoting Steve Dower :
As a Windows user, it makes me wonder if compiling with the latest
version of the Microsoft compiler
would improve things similarly?
I'd expect to see some improvement, based solely on the bugs fixed
recently by the optimizer team. No idea how much, but I know that
On 22 Jul, 2013, at 9:32, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>>> On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 16:36:35 -0700
>>> Raymond Hettinger wrote:
Our current Mac OS X builds use GCC-4.2.
>>
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 16:36:35 -0700
>> Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>>> Our current Mac OS X builds use GCC-4.2.
>>>
>>> On Python2.7, I ran a comparison of gcc-4.2.1 builds
>>> vers
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 16:36:35 -0700
> Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>> Our current Mac OS X builds use GCC-4.2.
>>
>> On Python2.7, I ran a comparison of gcc-4.2.1 builds
>> versus gcc-4.8.1 and found that the latter makes a much
>> faster Python
On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 16:36:35 -0700
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> Our current Mac OS X builds use GCC-4.2.
>
> On Python2.7, I ran a comparison of gcc-4.2.1 builds
> versus gcc-4.8.1 and found that the latter makes a much
> faster Python. PyBench2.0 shows the total running time
> dropping from 5653m
On 22 Jul, 2013, at 1:46, Ben Hoyt wrote:
> > PyBench2.0 shows the total running time dropping from 5653ms to 4571ms.
>
> That's very cool -- a significant improvement. Is this the kind of change
> that could go into 2.7.6 binaries?
I'd prefer not to do that (but don't build the installers an
On 22 Jul, 2013, at 1:36, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> Our current Mac OS X builds use GCC-4.2.
>
> On Python2.7, I ran a comparison of gcc-4.2.1 builds
> versus gcc-4.8.1 and found that the latter makes a much
> faster Python. PyBench2.0 shows the total running time
> dropping from 5653ms to 45
On 22 Jul, 2013, at 3:01, Larry Hastings wrote:
> On 07/21/2013 04:36 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>> Our current Mac OS X builds use GCC-4.2.
>>
>> On Python2.7, I ran a comparison of gcc-4.2.1 builds
>> versus gcc-4.8.1 and found that the latter makes a much
>> faster Python. PyBench2.0 show
On 07/21/2013 04:36 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
Our current Mac OS X builds use GCC-4.2.
On Python2.7, I ran a comparison of gcc-4.2.1 builds
versus gcc-4.8.1 and found that the latter makes a much
faster Python. PyBench2.0 shows the total running time
dropping from 5653ms to 4571ms. The code
On Jul 21, 2013, at 5:32 PM, Ned Deily wrote:
> In article <252c50d8-c23d-438d-bae1-b22e0d65a...@gmail.com>,
> Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>> Our current Mac OS X builds use GCC-4.2.
>>
>> On Python2.7, I ran a comparison of gcc-4.2.1 builds
>> versus gcc-4.8.1 and found that the latter makes a m
In article <252c50d8-c23d-438d-bae1-b22e0d65a...@gmail.com>,
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> Our current Mac OS X builds use GCC-4.2.
>
> On Python2.7, I ran a comparison of gcc-4.2.1 builds
> versus gcc-4.8.1 and found that the latter makes a much
> faster Python. PyBench2.0 shows the total running
>From: Ben Hoyt
>> PyBench2.0 shows the total running time dropping from 5653ms to 4571ms.
>
> That's very cool -- a significant improvement. Is this the kind of change
> that could go into 2.7.6 binaries?
>
> As a Windows user, it makes me wonder if compiling with the latest version of
> the M
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Ben Hoyt wrote:
>> PyBench2.0 shows the total running time dropping from 5653ms to 4571ms.
>
> That's very cool -- a significant improvement. Is this the kind of change
> that could go into 2.7.6 binaries?
>
> As a Windows user, it makes me wonder if compiling with
> PyBench2.0 shows the total running time dropping from 5653ms to 4571ms.
That's very cool -- a significant improvement. Is this the kind of change
that could go into 2.7.6 binaries?
As a Windows user, it makes me wonder if compiling with the latest version
of the Microsoft compiler would improve
Our current Mac OS X builds use GCC-4.2.
On Python2.7, I ran a comparison of gcc-4.2.1 builds
versus gcc-4.8.1 and found that the latter makes a much
faster Python. PyBench2.0 shows the total running time
dropping from 5653ms to 4571ms. The code is uniformly
better in just about every category.
20 matches
Mail list logo
