This is the mail archive of the java@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the Java 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 and Fortran eat GCJ for lunch at number crunching

From: Per Bothner <per at bothner dot com>
To: Erik Poupaert <erik dot poupaert at chello dot be>
Cc: java at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 07:32:35 -0800
Subject: Re: GCC and Fortran eat GCJ for lunch at number crunching
References: <POEIJGMGPFPGFHAGKFHACEHLCDAA.erik.poupaert@chello.be>

Erik Poupaert wrote:

http://www.coyotegulch.com/reviews/almabench.html

"""
Another surprise was delivered by the weak showing of the GNU gcj compiler.
For numerical work, at least, there doesn't look to be any reason to use gcj
(which is only a partial Java implementation) unless you need a bit of extra
performance in your Pentium III-based Java code. Perhaps I'm missing
something obvious; clearly this result requires further investigation.
"""

A couple of people have pointed out on slashdot that
compiling with --fast-math makes a huge difference.
--
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com   http://www.bothner.com/per/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: GCC and Fortran eat GCJ for lunch at number crunching
  - From: Mark Wielaard
- RE: GCC and Fortran eat GCJ for lunch at number crunching
  - From: Erik Poupaert

References:
- GCC and Fortran eat GCJ for lunch at number crunching
  - From: Erik Poupaert

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