From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30387 invoked by alias); 15 Mar 2004 01:47:03 -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 30380 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2004 01:47:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ams006.ftl.affinity.com) (216.219.253.152) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Mar 2004 01:47:03 -0000 Received: from coyotegulch.com ([4.4.125.218]) by ams.ftl.affinity.com with ESMTP id <335459-24145>; Sun, 14 Mar 2004 20:44:38 -0500 Message-ID: <40550A82.3040500@coyotegulch.com> Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 01:47:00 -0000 From: Scott Robert Ladd User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040310 Debian/1.6-2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gabriel Dos Reis CC: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: GCC viciously beaten by ICC in trig test! References: <4054ED19.8020009@coyotegulch.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00640.txt.bz2 Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > Did you try by declaring doit() inline? > (I suppose that won't change much the outcome, but I'm curious). I can get it to be inlined, but that doesn't do much for the performance. This all came up because someone recompiled a program (with ICC) I'd written some years ago for a client -- and they noticed that the ICC version was 3 times faster than the GCC version. I get the same results. I also note that on my current benchmark suites, GCC 3.3.3 performs as well or better than ICC on all tests (in terms of generated code speed) -- EXCEPT the ones involving trigonometry. Which is why I was wondering if I'd missed a magic word. I'll check this out on Sparc and AMD64 in a day or so, to see if it's just a problem with the Pentium 4. -- Scott Robert Ladd Coyote Gulch Productions (http://www.coyotegulch.com) Software Invention for High-Performance Computing