public inbox for gcc@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Tim Prince" <tprince@computer.org>
To: <pcarlini@unitus.it>
Cc: <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: compiling linux kernels with GCC 3.0
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 19:03:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <009a01c151f8$e39fe250$8f66323f@amr.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3BC4E333.C2295FF0@unitus.it>

The partial register stalls, blocked store forwarding, et al,
penalize the P4 much more severely than the AMD processors.
Honza has corrected several of these problems in gcc-3.1, so,
although 3.0.x perform much worse than 2.95.x, performance is
more than recovered in 3.1.  I've found a few popular public
benchmarks where gcc-3.1/g77 beats all of the commercial
compilers on p4, when appropriate compiler options are chosen; of
course there are more where that is not so.  AMD may be paying
more than their share of the bill for the improvements in gcc,
but the developers have not failed to make improvements which
have more benefit for Intel processors than for AMD.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paolo Carlini" <pcarlini@unitus.it>
To: "Richard Henderson" <rth@redhat.com>
Cc: <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: compiling linux kernels with GCC 3.0


> Richard Henderson wrote:
>
> > >     http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-09/msg00217.html
> >
> > This is actually a new bug.  It very much post-dates the
> > back end rewrite.
>
> Sure, between 3.0 and 3.0.1.
>
> However, I'm still wondering if perhaps such kind of specific
problems my
> slightly penalize Intel processors with respect to AMD ones in
both absolute and
> relative terms (Joe Buck argued for a progress from 2.95.3 to
3.0 to 3.0.1 on
> AMD). What do you believe?
>
> Thanks for introducing me to partial register stall issues!!
> Paolo Carlini.
>

  parent reply	other threads:[~2001-10-10 19:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2001-10-10  5:37 Alan Lehotsky
2001-10-10  7:22 ` Florian Weimer
2001-10-10  9:04   ` Josh McKinney
2001-10-10  9:26 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-10-10 11:09   ` Joe Buck
2001-10-10 11:23     ` Linus Torvalds
2001-10-10 15:23       ` Joe Buck
2001-10-10 16:19         ` Paolo Carlini
2001-10-10 16:58           ` Richard Henderson
2001-10-10 17:09             ` Paolo Carlini
2001-10-10 17:12               ` Richard Henderson
2001-10-10 19:03               ` Tim Prince [this message]
2001-10-10 15:39       ` Matthew Woodcraft
2001-10-10 11:40   ` Mark Mitchell
2001-10-10 14:01     ` Paolo Carlini
2001-10-10 14:15       ` Mark Mitchell
2001-10-10 14:54         ` Paolo Carlini
2001-10-10 15:57       ` Joe Buck
2001-10-10 11:23 Reichelt

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='009a01c151f8$e39fe250$8f66323f@amr.corp.intel.com' \
    --to=tprince@computer.org \
    --cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=pcarlini@unitus.it \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).