Loop unrolling-related SPEC regressions?

[Laurent Guerby]

Andreas Jaeger wrote:

> ??? Both pages uses Intel's compiler.  You just compared two windows
> results - or am I missing something?

I misinterpreted the URL you gave as being your results, indeed my first 
comparison
was just showing off the yearly progress of the Intel compiler dudes on 
generating
better AMD Athlon code, quite impressive :).

 > What is interesting is the comparance of my GCC values together with
 > AMD's values from 2001q2,

G: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-02/msg00448.html
A: 
http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2001q2/cpu2000-20010519-00651.asc

               G   A   G/A    GP   AP GP/AP
164.gzip    511 608 0.840   530  619 0.856
175.vpr     310 319 0.971   302  342 0.883
176.gcc     384 357 1.075   400  430 0.930
181.mcf     217 229 0.947   201  232 0.866 (1)
186.crafty  585 665 0.879   614  692 0.887
197.parser  383 436 0.878   387  434 0.891 (2)
252.eon     616 839 0.734   618 1046 0.590
253.perlbmk 562 759 0.740   583  748 0.779 (2)
254.gap     467 581 0.803   482  579 0.832 (2)
255.vortex  474 764 0.620   501  796 0.629
256.bzip2   397 401 0.990   377  423 0.891 (1)
300.twolf   331 417 0.793   336  421 0.798

(1) GCC peak < GCC base, profile feedback not working as intended :).
(2) AMD peak < AMD base (???)

Still 20-something % on perl.

-- 
Laurent Guerby <guerby@acm.org>