Author: Bo Persson
Date: 03:04:47 05/12/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 11, 2002 at 09:44:18, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On May 10, 2002 at 23:20:32, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On May 09, 2002 at 22:18:18, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On May 09, 2002 at 10:21:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On May 08, 2002 at 23:54:50, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>> >>>>>Sometimes i hate company politics. A superb compiler intel c++ >>>>>they weakened it for K7. Where 5.0.1 compiler was pretty fast >>>>>for the superb K7 processors, the 6.0 compiler is deliberatly >>>>>doing bad for K7. >>>> >>>> >>>>I doubt it is "deliberate". Why would Intel worry about optimizing for >>>>the K7 when they don't build them? >>>> >>>>Wouldn't make any sense at all, IMHO... >>> >>>because 5.0.1 is faster on k7 than 6.01 >>> >> >> >>So what? I have occasionally done things to Crafty to make it faster on >>a pentium, which also makes it slower on _other_ architectures. But since >>I do 99% of my testing on Intel, this is the way things work out. I could >>see lots of places where optimizing for intel would break AMD processor >>pipes at times... The inverse is also true, but since AMD is not writing >>a compiler for their chip, they don't have something to make them look >>their best... >> >>Which will always hurt them on SPEC of course... >> > >AMD must be busy with their own compiler, otherwise the whole >Hammer chip is a major joke; only alternative could be visual m$ works >on a compiler for it. > I will give you a clue: MS has already promised to deliver Windows for the Hammer. Guess what compiler they will be using! Bo Perswson bop2@telia.com
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.