gcc cache misses [was: Re: OT: How is memory latency important on AMD64 box while compiling large C/C++ sources]

[Mike Stump]

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.