Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   C Programming (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f42-c-programming.html)
-   -   Comparing Linux C and C++ Compilers: Benchmarks and Analysis (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t435244-comparing-linux-c-and-c-compilers-benchmarks-and-analysis.html)

Scott Robert Ladd 09-18-2004 05:07 PM

Comparing Linux C and C++ Compilers: Benchmarks and Analysis
 
Hello,

I've posted a comparison of recent GCC versions (3.3, 3.4, and the
coming 4.0) with Intel C++ 8.1, including several benchmarks and
"state-of-the-product" reviews. You can find the article at:

http://www.coyotegulch.com/reviews/linux_compilers/

The above article replaces an older article I published in late 2002. This
new comparison marks what I hope will be an ongoing series that tracks the
quality of Linux compilers.

...Scott

--
Scott Robert Ladd
site: http://www.coyotegulch.com
blog: http://chaoticcoyote.blogspot.com



CBFalconer 09-18-2004 09:05 PM

Re: Comparing Linux C and C++ Compilers: Benchmarks and Analysis
 
Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
>
> I've posted a comparison of recent GCC versions (3.3, 3.4, and
> the coming 4.0) with Intel C++ 8.1, including several benchmarks
> and "state-of-the-product" reviews. You can find the article at:
>
> http://www.coyotegulch.com/reviews/linux_compilers/
>
> The above article replaces an older article I published in late
> 2002. This new comparison marks what I hope will be an ongoing
> series that tracks the quality of Linux compilers.


FYI the above produces peculiar results, like an overprint, when
received here with Netscape 4.75 under W98. Has it been passed
through html verification?

It neglects to show the optimization levels etc. used in running
gcc. The complete command line would be useful. You are aware
than gcc can also be told to use various instruction sets, from
the 386 onwards?

--
"This is a wonderful answer. It's off-topic, it's incorrect,
and it doesn't answer the question." -- Richard Heathfield

"I support the Red Sox and any team that beats the Yankees"


Scott Robert Ladd 09-18-2004 09:20 PM

Re: Comparing Linux C and C++ Compilers: Benchmarks and Analysis
 
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 21:05:25 +0000, CBFalconer wrote:
> FYI the above produces peculiar results, like an overprint, when
> received here with Netscape 4.75 under W98. Has it been passed through
> html verification?


The web page uses XHTML formatting in the tables; it works fine with
Firefox 0.9.3 and 1.0PR, IE 6, and Konqueror 3.3, and Mozilla 1.7. I don't
have Netscape installed anywhere. The page passed a "tidy" test on in
Quanta Plus, my web editor.

> It neglects to show the optimization levels etc. used in running gcc.
> The complete command line would be useful. You are aware than gcc can
> also be told to use various instruction sets, from the 386 onwards?


Yes, the article *does* show the switches used, in the section on "Test
Methods."

I compiled for the native instruction set of the target processor (using
-march=opteron and -march=pentium4, as appropriate). Again, this is stated
in the article. To quote from the article:

* for all GCC versions on Pentium 4:
-march=pentium4 -mfpmath=sse -fomit-frame-pointer -ffast-math -O3
* for GCC 3.4 and 4.0 on Opteron:
-march=opteron -ffast-math -O3
* for GCC 3.3 on Opteron:
-march=athlon-xp -ffast-math -O3
* for Intel C++ on Pentium 4:
icc -O3 -xN -tpp7 -ipo


--
Scott Robert Ladd
site: http://www.coyotegulch.com
blog: http://chaoticcoyote.blogspot.com



pete 09-19-2004 03:07 AM

[ot]Re: Comparing Linux C and C++ Compilers: Benchmarks and Analysis
 
Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
>
> On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 21:05:25 +0000, CBFalconer wrote:
> > FYI the above produces peculiar results, like an overprint, when
> > received here with Netscape 4.75 under W98.
> > Has it been passed through html verification?

>
> The web page uses XHTML formatting in the tables; it works fine with
> Firefox 0.9.3 and 1.0PR, IE 6, and Konqueror 3.3,
> and Mozilla 1.7. I don't have Netscape installed anywhere.
> The page passed a "tidy" test on in Quanta Plus, my web editor.


On that page,
http://www.coyotegulch.com/reviews/linux_compilers/
my Netscape 3.04g has overprint,
my IE V6.0 has no overprint.

--
pete

Jack Klein 09-19-2004 03:55 AM

Re: Comparing Linux C and C++ Compilers: Benchmarks and Analysis
 
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 21:05:25 GMT, CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com>
wrote in comp.lang.c:

> Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
> >
> > I've posted a comparison of recent GCC versions (3.3, 3.4, and
> > the coming 4.0) with Intel C++ 8.1, including several benchmarks
> > and "state-of-the-product" reviews. You can find the article at:
> >
> > http://www.coyotegulch.com/reviews/linux_compilers/
> >
> > The above article replaces an older article I published in late
> > 2002. This new comparison marks what I hope will be an ongoing
> > series that tracks the quality of Linux compilers.

>
> FYI the above produces peculiar results, like an overprint, when
> received here with Netscape 4.75 under W98. Has it been passed
> through html verification?


If someone told me that a web page of mine did not render properly
under Netscape 4.75, I would ask them why they are using that creaky
antique. Mozilla 1.72, Mozilla Firefox and Netscape 7.2 are free. I
tested the page in two up-to-date browsers, Firefox and Opera.

So why are you using that creaky antique?

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~a...FAQ-acllc.html

CBFalconer 09-19-2004 11:56 AM

Re: Comparing Linux C and C++ Compilers: Benchmarks and Analysis
 
Jack Klein wrote:
> CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in comp.lang.c:
>

.... snip ...
>>
>> FYI the above produces peculiar results, like an overprint, when
>> received here with Netscape 4.75 under W98. Has it been passed
>> through html verification?

>
> If someone told me that a web page of mine did not render properly
> under Netscape 4.75, I would ask them why they are using that creaky
> antique. Mozilla 1.72, Mozilla Firefox and Netscape 7.2 are free.
> I tested the page in two up-to-date browsers, Firefox and Opera.
>
> So why are you using that creaky antique?


For similar reasons to why I am running it on a 486/80. My
primary use is as a newsreader, and every time I consider
upgrading I hear about one more reason that Mozilla/Firefox/NS7.2
would create a problem for me. Besides, it is quite young, just
barely old enough to go to kindergarten. My cars are all older
too, I have a '63 Honda motorcycle in the garage, and I won't even
mention my bicycle.

--
"This is a wonderful answer. It's off-topic, it's incorrect,
and it doesn't answer the question." -- Richard Heathfield

"I support the Red Sox and any team that beats the Yankees"



pete 09-19-2004 02:18 PM

[ot]Re: Comparing Linux C and C++ Compilers: Benchmarks and Analysis
 
CBFalconer wrote:
>
> Jack Klein wrote:
> > CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in comp.lang.c:
> >

> ... snip ...
> >>
> >> FYI the above produces peculiar results, like an overprint, when
> >> received here with Netscape 4.75 under W98. Has it been passed
> >> through html verification?

> >
> > If someone told me that a web page of mine did not render properly
> > under Netscape 4.75, I would ask them why they are using that creaky
> > antique. Mozilla 1.72, Mozilla Firefox and Netscape 7.2 are free.
> > I tested the page in two up-to-date browsers, Firefox and Opera.
> >
> > So why are you using that creaky antique?

>
> For similar reasons to why I am running it on a 486/80. My
> primary use is as a newsreader, and every time I consider
> upgrading I hear about one more reason that Mozilla/Firefox/NS7.2


If you want to get the newest viruses and worms,
then you need the newest software.

--
pete

Minti 09-19-2004 08:00 PM

Re: Comparing Linux C and C++ Compilers: Benchmarks and Analysis
 

"Scott Robert Ladd" <coyote@coyotegulch.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.09.18.17.07.16.279493@coyotegulch.co m...
> Hello,
>
> I've posted a comparison of recent GCC versions (3.3, 3.4, and the
> coming 4.0) with Intel C++ 8.1, including several benchmarks and
> "state-of-the-product" reviews. You can find the article at:
>
> http://www.coyotegulch.com/reviews/linux_compilers/
>
> The above article replaces an older article I published in late 2002. This
> new comparison marks what I hope will be an ongoing series that tracks the
> quality of Linux compilers.
>
> ..Scott
>
>


I just hope you forgot to post this on your bathroom tiles.




--
ISA




Rajeev 09-20-2004 02:03 PM

Re: Comparing Linux C and C++ Compilers: Benchmarks and Analysis
 
Scott Robert Ladd <coyote@coyotegulch.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.09.18.17.07.16.279493@coyotegulch.c om>...
> Hello,
>
> I've posted a comparison of recent GCC versions (3.3, 3.4, and the
> coming 4.0) with Intel C++ 8.1, including several benchmarks and
> "state-of-the-product" reviews. You can find the article at:
>
> http://www.coyotegulch.com/reviews/linux_compilers/
>
> The above article replaces an older article I published in late 2002. This
> new comparison marks what I hope will be an ongoing series that tracks the
> quality of Linux compilers.
>
> ..Scott


Scott,

Terrific work ! I've been wishing to find exactly this.

I'm looking for discussion groups, mailing lists, etc where folks discuss
experiences in achieving optimizations. Thanks for your suggestions, on-line
or off-

Regards,
-rajeev-


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:53 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.