From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17202 invoked by alias); 20 Jan 2004 12:07:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 17194 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2004 12:07:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail13.ha.ovh.net) (213.186.33.51) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Jan 2004 12:07:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 1559 invoked by uid 503); 20 Jan 2004 12:08:09 -0000 Received: from d213-103-42-181.cust.tele2.fr (HELO ?192.168.0.108?) (laurent%guerby.net@213.103.42.181) by ns0.ovh.net with SMTP; 20 Jan 2004 12:08:09 -0000 Subject: Re: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal From: Laurent GUERBY To: Karel Gardas Cc: Mark Hahn , gcc@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1074600455.28477.117.camel@pc> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 12:07:00 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01476.txt.bz2 On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 09:25, Karel Gardas wrote: > As a GCC user I'm insterested in as fast as possible C++ compiler. Guys, > this is a real pain to see how Comeau and/or Intel compiles faster than > GCC 3.3.x :-( (I'm sorry for this complain). And in addition I guess these > two are not the fastest C++ compilers in the industry... I was really > surprised seeing M$ VC 7.1 compiling much faster with all optimization > switch on than GCC at -O0 and even the code produced runs a bit faster > than those compiled by GCC with -O2... As requested by GCC developpers willing to care about your needs, please stop posting undocumented impressions and start submitting fully documented (version, compile/exec times, flags, code) cases in bugzilla. One of the only cases (C) with data posted so far between ICC and GCC was showing current GCC compiling FASTER. << compile benchmark time time -------- --------- gcc mainline 1:43 7:59 w/ -mfpmath=sse 1:46 6:30 gcc tree-ssa 1:46 7:35 w/ -mfpmath=sse ** SEG fault ** icc 8.0 1:53 5:50 >> 1:46 is faster than 1:53, sorry. Laurent