* Pro64-based GPLed compiler
@ 2005-06-29 15:46 Marc Gonzalez-Sigler
2005-06-29 18:01 ` Vladimir Makarov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Marc Gonzalez-Sigler @ 2005-06-29 15:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc
Hello everyone,
In 2000, SGI released a GPLed compiler suite.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2000-05/threads.html#00632
http://web.archive.org/www.sgi.com/newsroom/press_releases/2000/may/linux-ia64.html
I've taken PathScale's source tree (they've removed the IA-64 code
generator, and added an x86/AMD64 code generator), and tweaked the
Makefiles.
I thought some of you might want to take a look at the compiler.
http://www-rocq.inria.fr/~gonzalez/vrac/open64-alchemy-src.tar.bz2
Disclaimer: this release has received *very* little testing. Some might
cringe when they see the way I hacked the Makefile structure. (I welcome
all comments and suggestions.) I haven't managed to build the IPA
(inter-procedure analyzer) module.
--
Regards, Marc
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Pro64-based GPLed compiler
2005-06-29 15:46 Pro64-based GPLed compiler Marc Gonzalez-Sigler
@ 2005-06-29 18:01 ` Vladimir Makarov
2005-06-29 21:28 ` Marc
2005-06-30 1:19 ` Daniel Berlin
0 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Vladimir Makarov @ 2005-06-29 18:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marc Gonzalez-Sigler; +Cc: gcc
Marc Gonzalez-Sigler wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
>
> I've taken PathScale's source tree (they've removed the IA-64 code
> generator, and added an x86/AMD64 code generator), and tweaked the
> Makefiles.
>
> I thought some of you might want to take a look at the compiler.
>
> http://www-rocq.inria.fr/~gonzalez/vrac/open64-alchemy-src.tar.bz2
>
This reference doesn't work. The directory vrac looks empty.
Vlad
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Pro64-based GPLed compiler
2005-06-29 18:01 ` Vladimir Makarov
@ 2005-06-29 21:28 ` Marc
2005-06-30 1:19 ` Daniel Berlin
1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Marc @ 2005-06-29 21:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vladimir Makarov; +Cc: gcc
Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> Marc Gonzalez-Sigler wrote:
>
>> I've taken PathScale's source tree (they've removed the IA-64 code
>> generator, and added an x86/AMD64 code generator), and tweaked the
>> Makefiles.
>>
>> I thought some of you might want to take a look at the compiler.
>>
>> http://www-rocq.inria.fr/~gonzalez/vrac/open64-alchemy-src.tar.bz2
>
> This reference doesn't work. The directory vrac looks empty.
Fixed. I'll never understand how AFS ACLs work ;-(
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Pro64-based GPLed compiler
2005-06-29 18:01 ` Vladimir Makarov
2005-06-29 21:28 ` Marc
@ 2005-06-30 1:19 ` Daniel Berlin
2005-06-30 21:46 ` James E Wilson
1 sibling, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Berlin @ 2005-06-30 1:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vladimir Makarov; +Cc: Marc Gonzalez-Sigler, gcc
On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 14:01 -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> Marc Gonzalez-Sigler wrote:
>
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> >
> > I've taken PathScale's source tree (they've removed the IA-64 code
> > generator, and added an x86/AMD64 code generator), and tweaked the
> > Makefiles.
> >
> > I thought some of you might want to take a look at the compiler.
> >
> > http://www-rocq.inria.fr/~gonzalez/vrac/open64-alchemy-src.tar.bz2
> >
> This reference doesn't work. The directory vrac looks empty.
>
The only other interesting thing they've done is add a simdizer.
I diff'd the pathscale compiler and the open64 compiler source, and the
main differences are:
A bunch of random code #ifdef KEY'd
A SIMDizer, which doesn't look like it's as good as ours, it just has
better dependence and alias info to work with ATM.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Pro64-based GPLed compiler
2005-06-30 1:19 ` Daniel Berlin
@ 2005-06-30 21:46 ` James E Wilson
2005-06-30 22:23 ` Vladimir Makarov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: James E Wilson @ 2005-06-30 21:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Berlin; +Cc: Marc Gonzalez-Sigler, gcc
Daniel Berlin wrote:
> A bunch of random code #ifdef KEY'd
FYI Pathscale was formerly known as Key Research. So the KEY probably
wouldn't mean anything special here, it is likely just a marker for
local changes.
--
Jim Wilson, GNU Tools Support, http://www.SpecifixInc.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Pro64-based GPLed compiler
2005-06-30 21:46 ` James E Wilson
@ 2005-06-30 22:23 ` Vladimir Makarov
2005-06-30 22:30 ` Daniel Berlin
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Vladimir Makarov @ 2005-06-30 22:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: James E Wilson; +Cc: Daniel Berlin, Marc Gonzalez-Sigler, gcc
James E Wilson wrote:
> Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
>> A bunch of random code #ifdef KEY'd
>
>
> FYI Pathscale was formerly known as Key Research. So the KEY probably
> wouldn't mean anything special here, it is likely just a marker for
> local changes.
I heard a lot of this compiler and expected a better results for it.
Using -O2 -mtune=nocona for gcc4 and -O2 -mtune=em64t for open64 on
em64t machine in 32-bit mode, I found preliminarily that pathscale
compiler generates about 10% worse and 30% larger code (text segment)
for SPECInt2000. It is also 70% slower than gcc4. I just hope results
for 64-bit mode, amd machine, or SPECFP2000 are better.
Vlad
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Pro64-based GPLed compiler
2005-06-30 22:23 ` Vladimir Makarov
@ 2005-06-30 22:30 ` Daniel Berlin
2005-07-01 0:17 ` James E Wilson
2005-07-01 8:48 ` Marc Gonzalez-Sigler
2 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Berlin @ 2005-06-30 22:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vladimir Makarov; +Cc: James E Wilson, Marc Gonzalez-Sigler, gcc
On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 18:23 -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> James E Wilson wrote:
>
> > Daniel Berlin wrote:
> >
> >> A bunch of random code #ifdef KEY'd
> >
> >
> > FYI Pathscale was formerly known as Key Research. So the KEY probably
> > wouldn't mean anything special here, it is likely just a marker for
> > local changes.
>
> I heard a lot of this compiler and expected a better results for it.
Don't believe the hype.
It's really not that good of a compiler :)
It has interesting loop nest optimizations, but, ...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Pro64-based GPLed compiler
2005-06-30 22:23 ` Vladimir Makarov
2005-06-30 22:30 ` Daniel Berlin
@ 2005-07-01 0:17 ` James E Wilson
2005-07-01 2:02 ` Daniel Berlin
2005-07-01 8:48 ` Marc Gonzalez-Sigler
2 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: James E Wilson @ 2005-07-01 0:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vladimir Makarov; +Cc: Daniel Berlin, Marc Gonzalez-Sigler, gcc
Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> I just hope results
> for 64-bit mode, amd machine, or SPECFP2000 are better.
Their web pages primarily talk about the 64-bit performance on AMD
systems. Maybe they aren't well tuned for 32-bit performance and/or
Intel parts. Anyways, from what Daniel Berlin mentioned, it may be that
the tree-ssa stuff in gcc4.x has negated much of their earlier advantage.
--
Jim Wilson, GNU Tools Support, http://www.SpecifixInc.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Pro64-based GPLed compiler
2005-07-01 0:17 ` James E Wilson
@ 2005-07-01 2:02 ` Daniel Berlin
2005-07-01 9:24 ` Marc Gonzalez-Sigler
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Berlin @ 2005-07-01 2:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: James E Wilson; +Cc: Vladimir Makarov, Marc Gonzalez-Sigler, gcc
On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 17:17 -0700, James E Wilson wrote:
> Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> > I just hope results
> > for 64-bit mode, amd machine, or SPECFP2000 are better.
>
> Their web pages primarily talk about the 64-bit performance on AMD
> systems. Maybe they aren't well tuned for 32-bit performance and/or
> Intel parts. Anyways, from what Daniel Berlin mentioned, it may be that
> the tree-ssa stuff in gcc4.x has negated much of their earlier advantage.
I would not be surprised if they kick the crap out of us when it comes
to numerical fortran or something, but for regular c code, i'd not
expect more than 10-20% difference, max.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Pro64-based GPLed compiler
2005-06-30 22:23 ` Vladimir Makarov
2005-06-30 22:30 ` Daniel Berlin
2005-07-01 0:17 ` James E Wilson
@ 2005-07-01 8:48 ` Marc Gonzalez-Sigler
2 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Marc Gonzalez-Sigler @ 2005-07-01 8:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vladimir Makarov; +Cc: gcc
Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> I heard a lot of this compiler and expected a better results for it.
> Using -O2 -mtune=nocona for gcc4 and -O2 -mtune=em64t for open64 on
> em64t machine in 32-bit mode, I found preliminarily that pathscale
> compiler generates about 10% worse and 30% larger code (text segment)
> for SPECInt2000. It is also 70% slower than gcc4. I just hope results
> for 64-bit mode, amd machine, or SPECFP2000 are better.
You might want to give the official release a try. (In other words,
I don't think it's safe to use our "distribution" to judge EKOPath.)
http://www.pathscale.com/ekopath.html
AFAIU, LNO is not performed at -O2, so you should use -O3.
And, if I managed to build the IPA module, you should use -Ofast.
If you are interested, I can run SPECint2000 on a 3.0 GHz Northwood
core, and report the results here.
Finally, as James noted, the performance on AMD CPUs should be
higher than that on Intel CPUs.
--
Regards, Marc
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Pro64-based GPLed compiler
2005-07-01 2:02 ` Daniel Berlin
@ 2005-07-01 9:24 ` Marc Gonzalez-Sigler
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Marc Gonzalez-Sigler @ 2005-07-01 9:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Berlin; +Cc: gcc
Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 17:17 -0700, James E Wilson wrote:
>
>> Their web pages primarily talk about the 64-bit performance on AMD
>> systems. Maybe they aren't well tuned for 32-bit performance and/or
>> Intel parts. Anyways, from what Daniel Berlin mentioned, it may be that
>> the tree-ssa stuff in gcc4.x has negated much of their earlier advantage.
>
> I would not be surprised if they kick the crap out of us when it comes
> to numerical fortran or something, but for regular c code, i'd not
> expect more than 10-20% difference, max.
On an FX-57, EKOPath is close to icc for SPECint2000:
http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q2/cpu2000-20050613-04264.html
http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q2/cpu2000-20050613-04262.html
icc on WinXP SPECint2000 = 1970
pathcc on Linux SPECint2000 = 1929
Do you have a SPECint2000 breakdown for gcc tree-ssa on Linux?
The dev's summit mentions SPECint2000 results, but I didn't find what
I was looking for.
http://www.gccsummit.org/2005/2005-GCC-Summit-Proceedings.pdf
--
Regards, Marc
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Pro64-based GPLed compiler
@ 2005-07-01 6:58 Joost VandeVondele
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Joost VandeVondele @ 2005-07-01 6:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc; +Cc: wilson, dberlin
>> Their web pages primarily talk about the 64-bit performance on AMD
>> systems. Maybe they aren't well tuned for 32-bit performance and/or
>> Intel parts. Anyways, from what Daniel Berlin mentioned, it may be
that
>> the tree-ssa stuff in gcc4.x has negated much of their earlier
advantage.
>I would not be surprised if they kick the crap out of us when it comes
>to numerical fortran or something, but for regular c code, i'd not
>expect more than 10-20% difference, max.
At least there is some comparison for fortran (amd,intel,32,64)
http://www.polyhedron.co.uk/compare/linux/f77bench_AMD.html
http://www.polyhedron.co.uk/compare/linux/f77bench_p4.html
http://www.polyhedron.co.uk/compare/linux/f90bench_AMD.html
http://www.polyhedron.co.uk/compare/linux/f90bench_p4.html
there's no g77 on te first graph and f90 graphs, but NAG translates
fortran to C and uses gcc for code generation, and as it is faster than
g77 in f77bench_p4, that is a worthwhile comparison.
Cheers,
Joost
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-07-01 9:24 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2005-06-29 15:46 Pro64-based GPLed compiler Marc Gonzalez-Sigler
2005-06-29 18:01 ` Vladimir Makarov
2005-06-29 21:28 ` Marc
2005-06-30 1:19 ` Daniel Berlin
2005-06-30 21:46 ` James E Wilson
2005-06-30 22:23 ` Vladimir Makarov
2005-06-30 22:30 ` Daniel Berlin
2005-07-01 0:17 ` James E Wilson
2005-07-01 2:02 ` Daniel Berlin
2005-07-01 9:24 ` Marc Gonzalez-Sigler
2005-07-01 8:48 ` Marc Gonzalez-Sigler
2005-07-01 6:58 Joost VandeVondele
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).