On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 5:12 AM, Greg Lindahl <lind...@pbm.com> wrote:
> > [Intel and Shanghai] > > > Is this deliberate? > > > > In the sense that they have no desire to support > > competitors hardware, yes. Not really surprising, > > if AMD made compilers I doubt they'd try and do > > Intel specific optimisations either.. > > Actually, that's what a part of the AMD/Intel anti-trust lawsuit is > about. Back in the day of plug-compatible mainframes, IBM would have > been in deep anti-trust doodoo for intentionally reducing performance > on competing hardware -- and their mainframe architecture, just like > x86, had a wide variety of add-on features which could be tested for > individually, just like SSE / SSE2 / SSE3 / etc. > > Instead of making compilers, AMD chose to suport PathScale (now > SiCortex), PGI, and gcc, all of which also have Intel-specific > optimizations. > Probably AMD had been thinking hard on this and decided to make compilers at last. http://developer.amd.com/cpu/open64/pages/default.aspx > > As for the blog posting, you shouldn't draw general conclusions from a > single toy test-case. And I think you'll find all compilers will do a > much better job if they know at compile-time that it's x**(-2)... so > if that's your real app, don't code it like that toy. > > -- greg > > > > _______________________________________________ > Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org sponsored by Penguin Computing > To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit > http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf > -- Best Regards, Balamurugan. R
_______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org sponsored by Penguin Computing To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
