Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 14:17:55 08/05/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 05, 2003 at 14:27:03, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >On August 05, 2003 at 13:35:18, Frank Phillips wrote: > >>... >> >>Eugene has previously stated that gcc is philosophically slow because of the >>developers intention to not concentrate on specific cpu architecture – I think. > >No, I did bot stated that. I stated that > >(1) Some ancient decisions were made in gcc design when VAX and mc68k were >primary gcc targets; the worst one is poor memory disambiguation. Now that >decisions hurt optimizations a lot, especially on CPUs with large number of >registers, but fixing those decisions require *highly coordinated* rewrite of >lot of code for lot of targets. > >(2) Some optimizations that would benefit *all* target CPUs are rejected on the >strictly ideological principles. > >Thanks, >Eugene > >>Frank Honestly, I'm surprised to hear that, or maybe the AMD coders did a real good job, because Zappa blows on my PC at work. Home: Linux+GCC3.2+Athlon 1.5GHZ Work: WinXP+MSVC7+PIV2.4GHZ At home Zappa is a good 50% faster. anthony
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.