Pro64-based GPLed compiler
Hello everyone, In 2000, SGI released a GPLed compiler suite. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2000-05/threads.html#00632 http://web.archive.org/www.sgi.com/newsroom/press_releases/2000/may/linux-ia64.html I've taken PathScale's source tree (they've removed the IA-64 code generator, and added an x86/AMD64 code generator), and tweaked the Makefiles. I thought some of you might want to take a look at the compiler. http://www-rocq.inria.fr/~gonzalez/vrac/open64-alchemy-src.tar.bz2 Disclaimer: this release has received *very* little testing. Some might cringe when they see the way I hacked the Makefile structure. (I welcome all comments and suggestions.) I haven't managed to build the IPA (inter-procedure analyzer) module. -- Regards, Marc
Re: Pro64-based GPLed compiler
Vladimir Makarov wrote: I heard a lot of this compiler and expected a better results for it. Using -O2 -mtune=nocona for gcc4 and -O2 -mtune=em64t for open64 on em64t machine in 32-bit mode, I found preliminarily that pathscale compiler generates about 10% worse and 30% larger code (text segment) for SPECInt2000. It is also 70% slower than gcc4. I just hope results for 64-bit mode, amd machine, or SPECFP2000 are better. You might want to give the official release a try. (In other words, I don't think it's safe to use our "distribution" to judge EKOPath.) http://www.pathscale.com/ekopath.html AFAIU, LNO is not performed at -O2, so you should use -O3. And, if I managed to build the IPA module, you should use -Ofast. If you are interested, I can run SPECint2000 on a 3.0 GHz Northwood core, and report the results here. Finally, as James noted, the performance on AMD CPUs should be higher than that on Intel CPUs. -- Regards, Marc
Re: Pro64-based GPLed compiler
Daniel Berlin wrote: On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 17:17 -0700, James E Wilson wrote: Their web pages primarily talk about the 64-bit performance on AMD systems. Maybe they aren't well tuned for 32-bit performance and/or Intel parts. Anyways, from what Daniel Berlin mentioned, it may be that the tree-ssa stuff in gcc4.x has negated much of their earlier advantage. I would not be surprised if they kick the crap out of us when it comes to numerical fortran or something, but for regular c code, i'd not expect more than 10-20% difference, max. On an FX-57, EKOPath is close to icc for SPECint2000: http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q2/cpu2000-20050613-04264.html http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q2/cpu2000-20050613-04262.html icc on WinXP SPECint2000 = 1970 pathcc on Linux SPECint2000 = 1929 Do you have a SPECint2000 breakdown for gcc tree-ssa on Linux? The dev's summit mentions SPECint2000 results, but I didn't find what I was looking for. http://www.gccsummit.org/2005/2005-GCC-Summit-Proceedings.pdf -- Regards, Marc
