From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25771 invoked by alias); 20 Jan 2004 14:41:31 -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 25764 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2004 14:41:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thinkpad.wg-ro-gar1.inext.cz) (212.111.6.80) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Jan 2004 14:41:30 -0000 Received: from karel (helo=localhost) by thinkpad.wg-ro-gar1.inext.cz with local-esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Aix54-0007PQ-00; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:42:14 +0100 Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 14:41:00 -0000 From: Karel Gardas X-X-Sender: karel@thinkpad.wg-ro-gar1.inext.cz To: Laurent GUERBY cc: Mark Hahn , Subject: Re: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal In-Reply-To: <1074600455.28477.117.camel@pc> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01496.txt.bz2 On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Laurent GUERBY wrote: > On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 09:25, Karel Gardas wrote: > > As a GCC user I'm insterested in as fast as possible C++ compiler. Guys, > > this is a real pain to see how Comeau and/or Intel compiles faster than > > GCC 3.3.x :-( (I'm sorry for this complain). And in addition I guess these > > two are not the fastest C++ compilers in the industry... I was really > > surprised seeing M$ VC 7.1 compiling much faster with all optimization > > switch on than GCC at -O0 and even the code produced runs a bit faster > > than those compiled by GCC with -O2... > > As requested by GCC developpers willing to care about your needs, > please stop posting undocumented impressions and start submitting fully > documented (version, compile/exec times, flags, code) cases in bugzilla. > > One of the only cases (C) with data posted so far between ICC and GCC > was showing current GCC compiling FASTER. > > << > > compile benchmark > time time > -------- --------- > gcc mainline 1:43 7:59 > w/ -mfpmath=sse 1:46 6:30 > > gcc tree-ssa 1:46 7:35 > w/ -mfpmath=sse ** SEG fault ** > > icc 8.0 1:53 5:50 > >> > > 1:46 is faster than 1:53, sorry. Nice, I'm just finishing download of icc8.0, anyway, como433 x gcc340 testing is finished, just to show few interesting numbers here (the full table comparison will be sent with icc8.0 results too): [1] [2] [3] pi.cc 17.53 5.58 -214.16 pi_impl.cc 24.79 8.91 -178.23 typecode_seq.cc 14.99 4.97 -201.61 timebase.cc 14.44 4.94 -192.31 ir.cc 53.89 12.62 -327.02 ir_base.cc 17.64 5.52 -219.57 imr.cc 23.93 6.4 -273.91 [1]: GCC 3.4.0 as in previous tests -O0 optimize option [2]: COMO 4.3.3 + GCC 3.3.2 backend, -O0 optimize option (note that GCC is used as an ``assembler'' here, so the time to compile produced C code is not counted (i.e. como is ``just'' C++ to C compiler) [3]: delta in % As I said, stay tuned to see more results! :-) Karel -- Karel Gardas kgardas@objectsecurity.com ObjectSecurity Ltd. http://www.objectsecurity.com