Author: Kevin Strickland
Date: 21:54:47 04/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 21, 2002 at 00:51:54, Kevin Strickland wrote: >On April 21, 2002 at 00:43:27, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On April 21, 2002 at 00:39:14, Kevin Strickland wrote: >> >>>>there are 2 ways to discredit results >>>> a) discredit the guy who gets them >>>> b) discredit the program he gets them with >>>> c) discredit the accuracy the testresults were gotten in >>>> d) start sueing and during the trial disallow results getting posted >>>> >>>>he's trying a+b now. >>>> >>>>Very cheap. >>>> >>>>The real thing he DISLIKES to hear is that >>>>INTEL C++ is FASTER now and it might take another year before >>>>m$ will release a new version of its compiler that can beat it! >>> >>>No I think you took his statement wrong. He was not trying to discredit the >>>compiler results, he was definately trying to discredit the statement that Diep >>>is "professionally programmed". He was taking a shot at you, not Intel. >> >>That's the same as trying to discredit results that show the msvc compiler >>is not fastest anymore. >> >>He seems to WORK daily onto the msvc compiler. >> >>Also we must take into account that usually a new released processor >>using a new compiler is doing better on specint programs usually. >> >>There is known an example recently where a FORTRAN program was speeded >>up a factor of 9 or something. >> >>It is impossible to lossless speedup DIEP 9 times at the same hardware. >> >>In fact 3.5% is nearly impossible. >> >>That's exactly what intel c++ did! > >I might have missed where he said that the MS compiler was still better. Could >you possibly show me within this thread where he stated that? > >Again I state he was discreditting you, not the compiler. In fact this is _exactly_ what he wrote: I would not tell "However to all standards, programming of DIEP is very professionally done" about the programmer who needlessly duplicates tens of megabytes of data only because he did not figured out how to efficiently use threads instead of processes. Or about the programmer who included others' code into his program without the permission. Eugene Please point out where he _discreditted_ the results you posted about. I am reading what he wrote and frankly he was calling you a theif and a non-professional programmer. I think you are taking what he said that turning this into a MS vs Intel battle when he was just plain calling you an idiot. Just my two cents.
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.