From: Mark Hahn <hahn@physics.mcmaster.ca>
To: Denis Vlasenko <vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] Corrected gcc3.2 v gcc2.95.3 contest results
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 11:47:30 -0400 (EDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0209241144550.28934-100000@coffee.psychology.mcmaster.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200209240850.g8O8odp24965@Port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua>
> > (And if there's more than a 1% variation between same kernel, compiled
> > with different compilers then the test is bust. Kernel CPU time is
> > dominated by cache misses and runtime is dominated by IO wait.
> > Quality of code generation is of tiny significance)
>
> Well, not exactly. If it is true that Intel/MS compilers beat GCC
> by 30% on code size, 30% smaller kernel ought to make some difference.
if you think that's true, then have you tried a modern GCC with -Os?
afaikt, this comparison of gcc's is primarily interesting because it might
show up some either misoptimizations or perhaps semantic problems in the
kernel (ie, perhaps violations of strict aliasing).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-09-24 15:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <Pine.LNX.4.33.0209232236070.27095-100000@coffee.psychology.mcmaster.ca>
2002-09-24 2:45 ` [BENCHMARK] Corrected gcc3.2 v gcc2.95.3 contest results Con Kolivas
2002-09-24 3:01 ` Andrew Morton
2002-09-24 9:34 ` Jan Hudec
2002-09-24 13:45 ` Denis Vlasenko
2002-09-24 9:26 ` Con Kolivas
2002-09-24 14:19 ` Denis Vlasenko
2002-09-24 15:47 ` Mark Hahn [this message]
2002-09-23 6:55 Con Kolivas
2002-09-23 7:49 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-09-23 10:30 ` Con Kolivas
2002-09-23 11:03 ` jw schultz
2002-09-23 12:47 ` Erik Andersen
2002-09-23 13:00 ` Con Kolivas
2002-09-23 13:15 ` Richard B. Johnson
2002-09-23 13:35 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-09-23 14:09 ` Richard B. Johnson
2002-09-23 18:24 ` Andrew Morton
2002-09-23 14:02 ` Ryan Anderson
2002-09-23 14:15 ` Richard B. Johnson
2002-09-23 14:24 ` Con Kolivas
2002-09-23 14:34 ` Jakub Jelinek
2002-09-23 16:03 ` Måns Rullgård
2002-09-23 14:43 ` Richard B. Johnson
2002-09-24 21:30 ` Bill Davidsen
2002-09-23 16:34 ` Oliver Xymoron
2002-09-23 21:47 ` Con Kolivas
2002-09-24 1:12 ` jw schultz
2002-09-24 9:18 ` Jan Hudec
2002-09-23 14:26 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-09-23 14:36 ` Con Kolivas
2002-09-24 21:27 ` Bill Davidsen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.33.0209241144550.28934-100000@coffee.psychology.mcmaster.ca \
--to=hahn@physics.mcmaster.ca \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).