This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: gcc cache misses [was: Re: OT: How is memory latency important on AMD64 box while compiling large C/C++ sources]
- From: Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>
- To: Karel Gardas <kgardas at objectsecurity dot com>
- Cc: GCC Mailing List <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 17:24:02 -0700
- Subject: Re: gcc cache misses [was: Re: OT: How is memory latency important on AMD64 box while compiling large C/C++ sources]
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.43.0504122146190.833-100000@thinkpad.gardas.net>
On Apr 12, 2005, at 12:59 PM, Karel Gardas wrote:
Either cachegrind is wrong, or gcc gets much better from that time?
Or do
I interpret cachegrind provided data in the wrong way? What do you
think
about it?
Or you're comparing x86 to power, and noticing that the x86 has to
execute way more data movement instructions for silly little things,
and it wins on most of the silly extra instructions?
Only collecting data side by side for the same work load and checking
out the numbers between the two will probably yield the truth.
If cachegrind works on ppc yellow dog linux.... one could compare
those numbers...
If I run across any arch to arch numbers, I'll post them.