This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: EGCS-971016: i686 Linux vs. SparcULTRA Solaris
- To: Fred Richardson <frichard at bbn dot com>
- Subject: Re: EGCS-971016: i686 Linux vs. SparcULTRA Solaris
- From: Oleg Krivosheev <kriol at fnal dot gov>
- Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 00:46:17 -0500 (CDT)
- cc: egcs at cygnus dot com
On Thu, 16 Oct 1997, Fred Richardson wrote:
> I've run a quick benchmark on a program I've been debugging for a
> while. It's very C++'ified and makes heavy use of the STL. It also
> does a lot of floating point. Here are some run-time stats when the
> input parameters are the same on both machines:
>
>
> Solaris2.5 UltraSPARC 170 (192 MB RAM, 830 MB VIRTUAL):
^^^^^^^^^^^
> TIME: 557.43s
> SIZE: 190832K
^^^^^^^
>
> Linux2.0 i686 (386 MB RAM, 1.04 GB VIRTUAL):
> TIME: 359.37s
> SIZE: 138012K
>
> On both architectures, EGCS was built with
> --with-gnu-as --with-gnu-ld --enable-shared --enable-haifa
>
> The flags used for compiling on the i686 were:
> -m486 -funsigned-char -fno-exceptions -O6 -finline-functions
> -ffast-math -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops
>
> The flags used for compiling on the Ultra were:
> -mcpu=ultrasparc -funsigned-char -fno-exceptions -O6
> -finline-functions -ffast-math -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops
>
> This seems like a remarkable difference. I find the allocation
> differences really suprising. But I can't say that I have any idea
> of what's going on. I'm hoping someone else will find this data-
> point enlightening ;)
sure it is enlightening...
your Ultra program should swap quite a lot...
Or you're measuring disk performance ? ;)
regards
OK