From: Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.com>
To: militzer@llnl.gov (Burkhard Militzer)
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Do we get the other 15% performance back too?
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:33:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200208262033.NAA16875@atrus.synopsys.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0208260923090.3598-100000@dresden.llnl.gov>
> As a fan of the C++ gnu compiler project, I would like to congratulate the
> gurus on the recent performance increase probably coming from corrections
> in the prefetch routines. My benchmark shows
>
> Processor/OS Compiler/options Time(sec)
> Pentium 4 1.7Ghz pgCC -O3 -fast -Minline=3/4 8.27
> Pentium 4 1.7Ghz gnu g++ -O3 (2.95.2) 8.62 <-- fastest
> Pentium 4 1.7Ghz Intel icpc 5.0 -O3 8.65
> Pentium 4 1.7Ghz gnu g++ -O3 (2.95.3) 10.94
> Pentium 4 1.7Ghz gnu g++ -O3 (3.2) 11.30 <-- new
> Pentium 4 1.7Ghz gnu g++ -O3 (3.01) 15.09 <-- previous
You don't explain just what you are timing here.
I don't understand why you are getting such different results for 2.95.2
and 2.95.3, considering that there aren't really any differences to speak
of; the only job of the 2.95.2 -> 2.95.3 patch was to fix some breakage
having to do with compatibility with glibc 2.2, as well as to fix a couple
of minor bugs in a way that should not have had any effect on compiler
performance.
How did you produce these compilers? Did you build them yourself, or
download them from somewhere? If they are from .rpm's or .deb's, were
they built for 686 or 386?
prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-08-26 13:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-08-26 9:43 Burkhard Militzer
2002-08-26 9:47 ` Andreas Jaeger
2002-08-26 13:33 ` Joe Buck [this message]
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=200208262033.NAA16875@atrus.synopsys.com \
--to=joe.buck@synopsys.com \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=militzer@llnl.gov \
/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).