From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-89203-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 15057 invoked by alias); 18 Jan 2004 09:40:11 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 15047 invoked from network); 18 Jan 2004 09:40:09 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO web41110.mail.yahoo.com) (66.218.93.26)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Jan 2004 09:40:09 -0000
Message-ID: <20040118094009.48932.qmail@web41110.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [128.12.51.83] by web41110.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 18 Jan 2004 01:40:09 PST
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 09:40:00 -0000
From: Dara Hazeghi <dhazeghi@yahoo.com>
Subject: GCC on SPEC.org
To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01158.txt.bz2

Hello,

in light of the recent discussion of gcc performance
(with particular emphasis on comparison with Intel's
compiler), the 3rd and 4th entries at
<http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2003q4/> may
be interesting. Perhaps we aren't so far off from
parity, at least in some areas? Cheers,

Dara

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus