Author: Matt Taylor
Date: 07:00:14 03/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 01, 2003 at 09:57:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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.... I don't think there would be a major difference, anyway. The MinGW version is going to spit out a PE binary, but it's still GCC generating all the important code. -Matt
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.