This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal
- From: Karel Gardas <kgardas at objectsecurity dot com>
- To: Laurent GUERBY <laurent at guerby dot net>
- Cc: Mark Hahn <hahn at physics dot mcmaster dot ca>, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:42:14 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: Re: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 09:25, Karel Gardas wrote:
> > As a GCC user I'm insterested in as fast as possible C++ compiler. Guys,
> > this is a real pain to see how Comeau and/or Intel compiles faster than
> > GCC 3.3.x :-( (I'm sorry for this complain). And in addition I guess these
> > two are not the fastest C++ compilers in the industry... I was really
> > surprised seeing M$ VC 7.1 compiling much faster with all optimization
> > switch on than GCC at -O0 and even the code produced runs a bit faster
> > than those compiled by GCC with -O2...
>
> As requested by GCC developpers willing to care about your needs,
> please stop posting undocumented impressions and start submitting fully
> documented (version, compile/exec times, flags, code) cases in bugzilla.
>
> One of the only cases (C) with data posted so far between ICC and GCC
> was showing current GCC compiling FASTER.
>
> <<
>
> compile benchmark
> time time
> -------- ---------
> gcc mainline 1:43 7:59
> w/ -mfpmath=sse 1:46 6:30
>
> gcc tree-ssa 1:46 7:35
> w/ -mfpmath=sse ** SEG fault **
>
> icc 8.0 1:53 5:50
> >>
>
> 1:46 is faster than 1:53, sorry.
Nice, I'm just finishing download of icc8.0, anyway, como433 x gcc340
testing is finished, just to show few interesting numbers here (the full
table comparison will be sent with icc8.0 results too):
[1] [2] [3]
pi.cc 17.53 5.58 -214.16
pi_impl.cc 24.79 8.91 -178.23
typecode_seq.cc 14.99 4.97 -201.61
timebase.cc 14.44 4.94 -192.31
ir.cc 53.89 12.62 -327.02
ir_base.cc 17.64 5.52 -219.57
imr.cc 23.93 6.4 -273.91
[1]: GCC 3.4.0 as in previous tests -O0 optimize option
[2]: COMO 4.3.3 + GCC 3.3.2 backend, -O0 optimize option (note that GCC
is used as an ``assembler'' here, so the time to compile produced C
code is not counted (i.e. como is ``just'' C++ to C compiler)
[3]: delta in %
As I said, stay tuned to see more results! :-)
Karel
--
Karel Gardas kgardas@objectsecurity.com
ObjectSecurity Ltd. http://www.objectsecurity.com