On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Steve White
> wrote:
>> Hi Richard!
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:31 AM, Steve White
>>> wrote:
Hi,
I run some tests of sim
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Steve White wrote:
> Hi Richard!
>
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:31 AM, Steve White
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I run some tests of simple number-crunching loops whenever new
>>> architectures and compilers
Hi Richard!
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:31 AM, Steve White
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I run some tests of simple number-crunching loops whenever new
>> architectures and compilers arise.
>>
>> These tests on recent Intel architectures show simi
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:31 AM, Steve White
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I run some tests of simple number-crunching loops whenever new
> architectures and compilers arise.
>
> These tests on recent Intel architectures show similar performance
> between gcc and icc compilers, at full optimization.
>
> Howeve
Hi,
I run some tests of simple number-crunching loops whenever new
architectures and compilers arise.
These tests on recent Intel architectures show similar performance
between gcc and icc compilers, at full optimization.
However a recent test on x86_64 showed the open64 compiler
outstripping gc