This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Estimated SPEC2000 results for gcc+alpha
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Subject: Re: Estimated SPEC2000 results for gcc+alpha
- From: Brad Lucier <lucier at math dot purdue dot edu>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 10:26:25 -0500 (EST)
- Cc: lucier at math dot purdue dot edu, hosking at cs dot purdue dot edu
Here are revised SPEC2000 extimated results; the new FP results are at
the bottom.
With gcc version 2.96 20000121 (experimental), options -mcpu=ev6 -O3
-ffast-math, MATHLIBOPT = -lcpml -lm:
SPEC CINT2000 Summary
-- --
Wed Jan 26 16:46:22 2000
SPEC License #0 Test date: -- Hardware availability: --
Tester: -- Software availability: --
Estimated Estimated
Base Base Base Peak Peak Peak
Benchmarks Ref Time Run Time Ratio Ref Time Run Time Ratio
------------ -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
164.gzip 1400 741 189*
175.vpr 1400 726 193*
176.gcc 1100 412 267*
181.mcf 1800 981 184*
186.crafty X
197.parser 1800 1201 150*
252.eon X
253.perlbmk 1800 800 225*
254.gap 1100 480 229*
255.vortex 1900 966 197*
256.bzip2 1500 640 234*
300.twolf X
Est. SPECint_base2000 205
Est. SPECint2000 --
With gcc version 2.96 20000127 (experimental), options -mcpu=ev6 -O3
-ffast-math, MATHLIBOPT = -lcpml -lm:
SPEC CFP2000 Summary
-- --
Thu Jan 27 21:56:37 2000
SPEC License #0 Test date: -- Hardware availability: --
Tester: -- Software availability: --
Estimated Estimated
Base Base Base Peak Peak Peak
Benchmarks Ref Time Run Time Ratio Ref Time Run Time Ratio
------------ -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
168.wupwise 1600 583 275 *
171.swim 3100 1797 173 *
172.mgrid 1800 1306 138 *
173.applu 2100 935 224 *
177.mesa 1400 369 379 *
178.galgel X
179.art 2600 654 398 *
183.equake 1300 599 217 *
187.facerec X
188.ammp 2200 858 256 *
189.lucas X
191.fma3d X
200.sixtrack 1100 1789 61.5 *
301.apsi 2600 1640 159 *
Est. SPECfp_base2000 --
Est. SPECfp2000 --
The four failures are written in Fortran 90, so gcc/g77 has no failures
in the CFP suite.
I believe the truly lousy result for 200.sixtrack is because libm.so
got linked in rather than libcpml.so, and that benchmark uses a lot of
elementary functions. I don't know how to set up libm so that libcpml is
automatically searched first for unresolved math references; if someone
can tell me, I'll run the benchmark suite over again.
Brad