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: Results from SPEC2006 FP analysis done at Richard`s request {late July / early August}


[Alan wrote:]

> Interesting, thanks.  For what kind of architecture are these -

You are welcome.

You raised 2 or 3 good points, I think.

First: the numbers are all from builds on and for the AMD64 ISA, AKA "x86_64".  My apologies for forgetting to mention that vital fact.

Second:  I did not tell the SPEC build system to use any particular "-march" or "-mtune" flags, and AFAIK it [SPEC] did not add any that I didn`t specify.  In other words, those compiler-tuning values were almost certainly at their GCC defaults.

[A question about the preceding: is "-march=native" the default nowadays, at least on GNU/Linux?      AFAIK the default GCC behavior is (still?) to generate code for the most generic form of the target ISA unless an explicit flag overrides this.]

Third: the server in question has Intel silicon for its CPUs.  If an implicit "-march=native" or similar is suspected of having been a factor, then please let me know and I`ll report back on the specifics.  [I am at home right now, so I have no easy way of getting that data right now.]


> specifically: with/out masked/gathering loads/stores ??


TTBOMK, generic AMD64/x86_64 does _not_ have the gathering stuff and the very latest from Intel _does_.

Sorry, but I don`t know about the masked form[s].  If that`s important to know, then please tell me and I will investigate.

Regards,

Abe


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