* Performance with IA64
@ 2002-02-22 1:28 Thomas Hiller
2002-02-22 11:25 ` Steve Christiansen
2002-02-23 20:57 ` Tim Prince
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Hiller @ 2002-02-22 1:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc
Hi,
I tested the gcc 3.0.2 (and gcc 3.1 at that time) and got in the end a
25% degradation compared to the Win64 compiler.
Have the current 3.1 snapshots optimization for IA64 that can change the
picture ?
What are the plans to get at least near to Win64 ?
I'm using Linux on IA64.
Thanks in advance.
Best regards,
Thomas
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Performance with IA64
2002-02-22 1:28 Performance with IA64 Thomas Hiller
@ 2002-02-22 11:25 ` Steve Christiansen
2002-02-23 20:57 ` Tim Prince
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Steve Christiansen @ 2002-02-22 11:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Hiller; +Cc: gcc
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 10:20:26AM +0100, Thomas Hiller wrote:
>
> What are the plans to get at least near to Win64 ?
Well, we have some suggestions for people willing to help.
This is more of a wish list than a plan really.
http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/ia64.html
Additions to the list are welcome too.
Steve
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Performance with IA64
2002-02-22 1:28 Performance with IA64 Thomas Hiller
2002-02-22 11:25 ` Steve Christiansen
@ 2002-02-23 20:57 ` Tim Prince
2002-02-25 1:50 ` Thomas Hiller
1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Tim Prince @ 2002-02-23 20:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Hiller, gcc
On Friday 22 February 2002 01:20, Thomas Hiller wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I tested the gcc 3.0.2 (and gcc 3.1 at that time) and got in the end a
> 25% degradation compared to the Win64 compiler.
Just curious; is there a general understanding of which compiler is meant? I
have used only the Microsoft and Intel compilers for Windows, each of which
is in a different pricing and support model category. I would be surprised
if there were a gcc for Win64; even more surprised if it performed better
than on linux.
>
> Have the current 3.1 snapshots optimization for IA64 that can change the
> picture ?
> What are the plans to get at least near to Win64 ?
>
> I'm using Linux on IA64.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Best regards,
> Thomas
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Performance with IA64
2002-02-23 20:57 ` Tim Prince
@ 2002-02-25 1:50 ` Thomas Hiller
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Hiller @ 2002-02-25 1:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: tprince; +Cc: gcc
My comparison was between the Microsoft compiler on Win64 and the gcc on
Linux/IA64.
- Thomas
Tim Prince wrote:
>On Friday 22 February 2002 01:20, Thomas Hiller wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I tested the gcc 3.0.2 (and gcc 3.1 at that time) and got in the end a
>>25% degradation compared to the Win64 compiler.
>>
>Just curious; is there a general understanding of which compiler is meant? I
>have used only the Microsoft and Intel compilers for Windows, each of which
>is in a different pricing and support model category. I would be surprised
>if there were a gcc for Win64; even more surprised if it performed better
>than on linux.
>
>>Have the current 3.1 snapshots optimization for IA64 that can change the
>>picture ?
>>What are the plans to get at least near to Win64 ?
>>
>>I'm using Linux on IA64.
>>
>>Thanks in advance.
>>
>>Best regards,
>>Thomas
>>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-02-25 9:22 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2002-02-22 1:28 Performance with IA64 Thomas Hiller
2002-02-22 11:25 ` Steve Christiansen
2002-02-23 20:57 ` Tim Prince
2002-02-25 1:50 ` Thomas Hiller
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).