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: C Compiler benchmark: gcc 4.6.3 vs. Intel v11 and others


libacml from AMD is also a good candidate to try:
http://www.ualberta.ca/AICT/RESEARCH/LinuxClusters/doc/acml350/Linking_002fWindows.html

David

On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 2:59 AM, Richard Guenther
<richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 7:37 AM, Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@inria.fr> wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Jan 2012, willus.com wrote:
>>
>>> For those who might be interested, I've recently benchmarked gcc 4.6.3
>>> (and 3.4.2) vs. Intel v11 and Microsoft (in Windows 7) here:
>>>
>>> http://willus.com/ccomp_benchmark2.shtml
>>
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows_SDK#64-bit_development
>>
>> For the math functions, this is normally more a libc feature, so you might
>> get very different results on different OS. Then again, by using
>> -ffast-math, you allow the math functions to return any random value, so I
>> can think of ways to make it even faster ;-)
>
> Also for math functions you can simply substitute the Intel compilers one
> (GCC uses the Microsoft ones) by linking against libimf. ?You can also make
> use of their vectorized variants from GCC by specifying -mveclibabi=svml
> and link against libimf (the GCC autovectorizer will then use the routines
> from the Intel compiler math library). ?That makes a huge difference for
> code using functions from math.h.
>
> Richard.
>
>> --
>> Marc Glisse


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