Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 15:37:50 04/13/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 13, 2001 at 18:17:32, Dann Corbit wrote: >On April 13, 2001 at 17:45:10, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>Hello, >> >>gcc in past always was very slow for me. 2.95.2 especially was >>at a PIII-cumine core around 10.8% slower. Note Xeons seem not >>made from the same core so always were slower as celeron and PIII >>for me. >> >>PIII itself nearly 20% faster as PII katmai core. Xeon 7% faster as PII >>and celeron 7.5% faster. >> >>However that's all single cpu measured. >>When running dual then very interesting is the size of the >>program in the L1,L2 caches (when talking about DIEP that is). >> >>Single cpu gcc 2.95.3 is only 8% slower as visual c++ 6.0 sp5 now. >>Using compile options: >> -O5 -march=pentiumpro -mcpu=pentiumpro -fno-gcse -fforce-mem >> >>note -mcpu=pentiumpro might be not needed as march might already >>mean that. >> >>Now if i take the exact same executable and compare it with 2.95.2, >>then the executable is 100kb smaller!! >> >>I was very happy about it but it started to amaze me when i >>started running it. >> >>Of course when running parallel it's very hard to measure very exactly >>differences. So i did some quite long testruns and compared at the >>same depth the nodes a second that visual and gcc got. >> >> gcc 2.95.3 : 68311 >> msvc 6.0 sp5 : 70110 >> >>Now THAT is amazing as it is even from head only about >>3% difference in speed. >> >>Hardware used was my dual 800PIII. 256mb ram and hashsize i chose was 150mb. >>In the test no EGTBs were loaded. >> >>So GCC is getting better again! HIEP HIEP HORAY! Dann, Download linux and install it, then download 2.95.3 and install it. No need to pay for it! I wonder why one would want to use cygwin ANYWAY, as it runs under windows and under windows i go for visual c++ then. >If you are using Cygwin, it comes with a 12 ton caveat: >You have to PAY to redistribute commercial applications that use Cygwin! I see not a single reason why i would need cygwin *anyhow*. win2000+msvc or linux+gcc That are the both options i'm using! PGCC is history. Litterary, as the good guys from pgcc joined forces (lucky) with others and formed gcc team (about 15 persons non-paid persons actually). gcc is free. Cygwin has nothing to do with gcc as far as i know. it's a win32 program which is doing some weird stuff, no idea what even. >I don't know of PGCC or any of the others have this awful restriction, but it >deserves looking into. > >See (for instance): >http://sources.redhat.com/cygwin/cygwin-ug-net/are-free.html > >!!! > >Welcome to the world of free software. It's like that 'Fram' add -- "You can >pay me now, or pay me later."
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.