From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-51720-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 31494 invoked by alias); 9 May 2002 13:20:31 -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 31483 invoked from network); 9 May 2002 13:20:30 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO fencepost.gnu.org) (199.232.76.164)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 May 2002 13:20:30 -0000
Received: from smtp-server6.tampabay.rr.com ([65.32.1.43])
	by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian))
	id 175nqP-0008O5-00
	for <gcc@gnu.org>; Thu, 09 May 2002 09:20:30 -0400
Received: from kepler (653232hfc127.tampabay.rr.com [65.32.32.127])
	by smtp-server6.tampabay.rr.com (8.12.2/8.11.2) with SMTP id g49DKSDn019870;
	Thu, 9 May 2002 09:20:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Scott Robert Ladd" <scott@coyotegulch.com>
To: "Jan Hubicka" <jh@suse.cz>
Cc: "Gcc@Gnu. Org" <gcc@gnu.org>
Subject: RE: Benchmarks gcc 3.0.4 (soon 3.1) vs. Intel C++ 6.0
Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 06:33:00 -0000
Message-ID: <FKEAJLBKJCGBDJJIPJLJKEOICFAA.scott@coyotegulch.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
In-Reply-To: <20020509130343.GX19486@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00648.txt.bz2

HI,

I asked RedHat's Richard Henderson about which options I should use for
getting the fastest code from gcc; he only suggested -O2. In fact, he wasn't
real hot on -O3 (which I used) because he thought it might slow code down
through bloat.

I am looking into this further; I hope to have an updated comparison,
including reader comments, over the weekend.

..Scott

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org]On Behalf Of
> Jan Hubicka
> Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 09:04
> To: Scott Robert Ladd
> Cc: Gcc@Gnu. Org
> Subject: Re: Benchmarks gcc 3.0.4 (soon 3.1) vs. Intel C++ 6.0
>
>
> > Hello, all,
> >
> > I've posted a set of benchmarks comparing the performance of
> code generated
> > by gcc 3.0.4 against that generated by Intel C++ 6.0 for Linux:
> >
> > http://www.coyotegulch.com/reviews/intel_comp/intel_gcc_bench2.html
>
> Interesting comparison..
> Would you please try how does
> -funroll-loops/-funroll-all-loops/-fomit-frame-pointer/-ffast-math
>  change the
> picture?  Also you may grab the 3.1.0 prerelease available already and use
> it for benchmarking.
>
> Honza
> >
> > Please read the entire article before drawing any conclusions.
> >
> > Scott Robert Ladd
> > Coyote Gulch Productions,  http://www.coyotegulch.com
> > No ads -- just very free (and somewhat unusual) code.
>