This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: egcs 1.0 *faster* than Sun's C compiler!!!!
- To: egcs at cygnus dot com
- Subject: Re: egcs 1.0 *faster* than Sun's C compiler!!!!
- From: Marcus Thiessel <thiessel at itwm dot uni-kl dot de>
- Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 17:46:29 +0100 (MEZ)
- References: <199712171144.NAA06478@blinky.bfr.co.il>
- Reply-To: egcs at cygnus dot com
>>>>> "Harvey" == Harvey J Stein <hjstein@bfr.co.il> writes:
Harvey> Sun, compiled with gcc -O3 -funroll-loops
Harvey> -finline-functions -ffast-math -fomit-frame-pointer
Harvey> -msupersparc 28.88user 0.27system 0:29.26elapsed 99%CPU
Harvey> Sun, compiled with cc -fast -xO4 -xdepend -xchip=ultra
Harvey> -xarch=v8plusa 39.86user 0.21system 0:40.15elapsed 99%CPU
Harvey> Sun, compiled with cc -fast -xO5 -xdepend -xchip=ultra
Harvey> -xarch=v8plusa 39.70user 0.17system 0:39.95elapsed 99%CPU
Harvey> Alpha, compiled with gcc -O2 11.82user 0.15system
Harvey> 0:12.08elapsed 99%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
Harvey> The sun is a 200mhz ultra-sparc. The alpha is a 533mhz
Harvey> alpha.
Harvey> Is it typical that gcc optimizes *better* than Sun's C
Harvey> compiler?
Well, SUNPro should be faster since you've pay for it. A major point
to argue about are the options to use. For example I don't what
-ffast-math does but what about enabling a simliar feature when
running SUNPro!? And why limit the instruction set to -xarch=v8plusa!?
My choice when running those tests is to iterate on set of options for
a certain compiler (and machine) in order to get the fastest run. This
is rather time consuming and the results merly depend on the fact how
much you know aboutn the compiler.
--Marcus