--- Comment #17 from jhopper at safe-mail dot net 2009-07-30 23:58 ---
you can find a nicer version of results (and potentially future updates) here:
http://anonym.to?http://manoa.flnet.org/linux/compilers.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35671
--- Comment #15 from jhopper at safe-mail dot net 2009-07-30 06:37 ---
btw, these results also show something else of interest: pgo degrades
performance
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35671
--- Comment #14 from jhopper at safe-mail dot net 2009-07-30 05:09 ---
one more thing to mention about gcc, is the configurations during their
compilation: (although it may not have much sense as those things were never
really having an effect to the anticipated extent)
../gcc-4.a.b
--- Comment #13 from jhopper at safe-mail dot net 2009-07-30 04:39 ---
one last thing: and try not to take the LU DECOMPOSITION test seriously between
the various gcc testing runs, there was great difference even when using the
same executable several times, except of corse for the huge
--- Comment #12 from jhopper at safe-mail dot net 2009-07-30 04:34 ---
one more note about executable size in memory:
while there was no difference in sizes in memory for all gcc versions
for icc versions there was a great difference:
VERSION VIRTRSS
gcc (all) ~2000kb 500kb
--- Comment #11 from jhopper at safe-mail dot net 2009-07-30 04:24 ---
forgot to mention executable sizes:
all tested gcc versions 4.2 4.3 and 4.4 were 100kb, intel executables were 68
and 72 kb respectively (version 10, 11).
executable size in memory (both VIRT and RSS) did not change
--- Comment #10 from jhopper at safe-mail dot net 2009-07-30 04:16 ---
abit more comprehensive gcc 4.2.4 vs 4.3.3 vs 4.4.0 vs 4.4.1 comparison using
nbench:
hardware: Intel celron 320 (prescott, SSE3, 256KB L2, socket 478) @ 2970 mhz
kernel: specially optimized by intel compiler 10
