Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
>
> My conclusion is the composite switches like -O2 are good only for
> general-purpose code. Anyone explicitly interested in squeezing out the
> most performance needs to do analysis and use application-specific switches.
>
Probably this situation is created by the fac
Menezes, Evandro wrote:
> Each HPC application tends to be unlike others, making it difficult
> to optimize GCC for an elusive typical FP application. Not that
> there isn't room for improvement though.
The performance of almost any HPC application can be isolated to
specific key loops, and every
Robert,
> > I know that these graphs don't show the results of most aggresive
> > optimization options for gcc, but that is also the case
> with icc (only
> > -O2). However, it looks that gcc and icc are not even in the same
> > class regarding FP performance. Perhaps there is some critical
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 11:20:24AM -0500, Menezes, Evandro wrote:
> A combination of SSE instead of x87, vectorization, vectorized
> math library,
>
Yes.
> and very good whole-program IPA.
>
Not at -O2.
Diego.
Steven,
> > An interesting examples are:
> > -177.mesa (this is a c test), where icc is almost 40% faster
>
> It would be interesting to look into this one.
A combination of SSE instead of x87, vectorization, vectorized math library,
and very good whole-program IPA.
--
_
We have investigated these benchmarks for PowerPC. The high-level
analysis is:
> Daniel Berlin writes:
>> An interesting examples are:
>> -177.mesa (this is a c test), where icc is almost 40% faster
FP to Int conversion.
Dan> SSE Vectorization, I believe.
>> -178.galgel, wh
On Sunday 12 June 2005 11:21, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Hello!
>
> There is an interesting comparison of SPEC scores between gcc and icc:
> http://people.redhat.com/dnovillo/spec2000.i686/gcc/individual-run-ratio.ht
>ml . A quick look at the graphs shows a big differences in achieved scores
> between gc
Uros Bizjak wrote:
> I think I'm not the only person, that finds these results rather
> "dissapointing". As Scott is currently writing a paper on gcc's FP
> performance, perhaps someone has an explanation, why gcc's results are
> so low on Pentium4 for these tests?
Interesting results.
I'm not a
On 6/12/05, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I could tell you why for PPC (where we aren't that far behind xlc or icc
> on a lot of them, if you use the right options), but no clue for x86.
It would be interesting to see what the difference is with
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2
On Sun, 2005-06-12 at 11:21 +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Hello!
>
> There is an interesting comparison of SPEC scores between gcc and icc:
> http://people.redhat.com/dnovillo/spec2000.i686/gcc/individual-run-ratio.html
> . A quick look at the graphs shows a big differences in achieved scores
> b
Uros Bizjak wrote:
I know that these graphs don't show the results of most aggresive
optimization options for gcc, but that is also the case with icc (only
-O2). However, it looks that gcc and icc are not even in the same class
regarding FP performance. Perhaps there is some critical optimizat
> Hello!
>
> There is an interesting comparison of SPEC scores between gcc and icc:
> http://people.redhat.com/dnovillo/spec2000.i686/gcc/individual-run-ratio.html
> . A quick look at the graphs shows a big differences in achieved scores
> between gcc and icc, mostly in SpecFP tests. I was tryi
Hello!
There is an interesting comparison of SPEC scores between gcc and icc:
http://people.redhat.com/dnovillo/spec2000.i686/gcc/individual-run-ratio.html
. A quick look at the graphs shows a big differences in achieved scores
between gcc and icc, mostly in SpecFP tests. I was trying to find
13 matches
Mail list logo
