Profile-guided optimization did not help much, as might be expected, it
pushed about the same kind of optimization as the mtune/march combination.
With gcc 4.1.3 i'm finding that profile guided optimization when trained
on pybench or regrtest does make a measurable difference (2-5% overall
-On [20080413 00:47], Gregory P. Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
With gcc 4.1.3 i'm finding that profile guided optimization when trained on
pybench or regrtest does make a measurable difference (2-5% overall time with
10-20% on some pybench tests). I haven't run benchmarks enough times to be
I did some more tests concentrating on GCC, partly based on the feedback I
got, results at
http://www.in-nomine.org/2008/04/12/python-26-compiler-options-results/
Executive summary: Python needs to be compiled with -O2 or -O3. Not doing
so, no optimization level, results with GCC 4.2.1 in a
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I did some more tests concentrating on GCC, partly based on the feedback I
got, results at
http://www.in-nomine.org/2008/04/12/python-26-compiler-options-results/
Executive summary: Python needs to be
I did some performance comparisons with various compilers and the resulting
Python 2.6a2 and pybench.
I put the details on
http://www.in-nomine.org/2008/04/11/python-26a2-execution-times-with-various-compilers/
Of course, take benchmark results with a grain of salt, but it seems ICC can
provide
