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: GCC Benchmarks (coybench), AMD64 and i686, 14 August 2004


 >               A      B      C     icc
 >             -----  -----  -----  -----
 >      alma:   43.2   22.2   23.7   13.2
 >      arco:   27.4   27.2   27.2   20.5
 >       evo:   43.4   42.0   63.8   29.8
 >       fft:   27.7   27.5   28.4   30.4
 >      huff:   13.9   13.1   13.2   16.4
 >       lin:   20.2   19.6   19.8   19.2
 >      mat1:    7.7    7.5    7.4    7.4
 >      mole:    8.8    6.7    6.8    2.1
 >      tree:   26.0   25.7   25.8   28.8
 >     -----   -----  -----  -----  -----
 >     total:  218.4  191.7  216.2  167.8
 > 
 > 
 > Hmmmm... I don't see where adding the -D__NO_??? options helped GCC --
 > in fact, those options hindered run time severely on the evo test!

Scott - thanks very much for running these tests, it was very informative.
Based on the results I conclude these things.

1.  Your current glibc *has* the patches that Jakub produced which
    benefits both 3.4 and 3.5.  Whereas in May, the -D__NO_* flags
    made an improvement:
    http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-05/msg00037.html
    now, clearly they don't help.  This is an improved situation, I
    want us to compare apples to apples when competing against ICC.
    We're closer to testing the compilers fairly now.

2.  In May GCC-3.4.1 beat ICC on alma, now it's the reverse.  Did GCC
    get worse, or did ICC get better?  See:
    http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-05/msg00114.html
    Something is fishy here.

3.  The evo test didn't regress in May when inlines were off,
    something else must be going on here.  Again see:
    http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-05/msg00037.html


 > Now people know why I don't specify all those #defines when I run my
 > tests; I haven't seen a measurable gain in generated code speed from
 > their use.

Yes you have, you just forgot.  See #1.

		Thanks,
		--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi			ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu


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