This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Benchmarks gcc 3.0.4 (soon 3.1) vs. Intel C++ 6.0


> Jan Hubicka said:
> > You may take a look at http://www.suse.de/~aj/SPEC for study of effect of
> > various switches on gcc 3.0.0 and SPEC benchmark.
> 
> Thanks for the point; I'd missed that page.
> 
> > Note that comparing gcc to Intel C++, Intel C++ seems to win for
> > numeric code,
> > while for integer code, the results are usually much more balanced.
> 
> Very true. I'm performing an experiment with many different gcc options; it
> looks like I might want to write an article on how to optimize code with
> gcc. ;)

Yes, generally choosing options depends on code you have.
I believe -O2 is good for compiling standard programs and that it is better
than the default setting of Intel compiler, but for benchmark it is not
easy to tunne the perofmrance.
For instance when you compile KDE with -O3 or -funroll-loops, you will
definitely loose, but when you compile whetstones, you win.
Even large scale benchmarks, like SPEC2000, are much smaller than the average
applications run today, so the results needs to be interpreted with this
in the mind.

Honza
> 
> Scott Robert Ladd
> Coyote Gulch Productions,  http://www.coyotegulch.com
> No ads -- just very free (and somewhat unusual) code.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]