Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:57:28 03/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 01, 2003 at 03:26:19, Alessandro Damiani wrote: >On March 01, 2003 at 00:24:41, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On February 28, 2003 at 17:39:55, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On February 28, 2003 at 17:34:23, Matthew Hull wrote: >>> >>>>On February 28, 2003 at 14:37:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 28, 2003 at 12:21:26, Russell Reagan wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On February 28, 2003 at 12:15:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>I've been using it since version 6.0, and for Crafty it >>>>>>>produces the >>>>>>>fastest executable of any compiler I have tried. >>>>>> >>>>>>Fastest linux executable, or fastest executable period, including the MS >>>>>>compilers? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>fastest linux is all I can say with any degree of confidence. I don't have any >>>>>easy way >>>>>to compare to MSVC and windows since I don't have any "equal" machines here yet. >>>>> >>>>>We are expecting a group of dual xeons that will be half linux half windows XP >>>>>within >>>>>a week or two so I might get to compare there, but I'd personally suspect that >>>>>MSVC >>>>>is going to be better (faster) based on past experience. Intel probably has >>>>>closed the gap, >>>>>but not completely I suspect. >>>> >>>> >>>>I thought Dan Corbit had said his binaries are done with Intel for max >>>>performance on Windows, not MSVC. >>> >>>Usually, Intel makes better binaries than MS VC++ 6.0 (with all relevant >>>patches) >>> >>>However, the MS VC++ .NET compiler frequently beats the Intel compiler. >>> >>>In addition, the latest MINGW GCC will sometimes pull a surprise with the right >>>combination of compiler flags. >> >>I try the latest gcc from time to time. I tried the most recent (non-beta) >>version today and discovered the profile-based optimization is DOA. Compiles >>fine, produces the profile files fine, but re-compiling causes the compiler to >>go into a royal snit complaing about corrupted profile data with impossible >>branch addresses and the like. And without profiling Intel doesn't just beat >>it, it destroys it. Profiling closes the gap, but it doesn't work in the >>current gcc 3 compiler (for Crafty it doesn't work, I have not tried it on >>other programs). > >Dann is talking about the MINGW variant of GCC (www.mingw.org). Did you mean >this one or the normal GCC? I guess the MINGW is faster than the normal GCC on >Windows maschines. > >Alessandro No. I was talking about gcc 3.x as released for unix platforms....
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.