| Linux Forum Index » Linux Alpha » Compaq C vs GCC-4.0.1 |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| DiskMan |
 Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 4:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Well this was a question I posted sometime ago and didn't get an answer... I
went ahead and compiled GCC-4.0.1 and ran a few speed tests, Compaq C still
dusts it... Hell, in comparison to older releases of GCC there's no speed
diff at all unless you compare to something ancient like GCC-2.96. Well I
can dream.... Will L G |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| uNiX pSyChO |
| Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 4:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
DiskMan wrote:
Quote: Well this was a question I posted sometime ago and didn't get an answer... I
went ahead and compiled GCC-4.0.1 and ran a few speed tests, Compaq C still
dusts it... Hell, in comparison to older releases of GCC there's no speed
diff at all unless you compare to something ancient like GCC-2.96. Well I
can dream.... Will L G
post your speed tests. and what did you recompile in order to get this
increase in speed? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| DiskMan |
| Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 8:56 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I used it on OpenSSL [which is optimized for the Alpha to begin with] and
ran openssl speed rsa and the like... Then I compared the results to one
another and to a previous post [pulled up in google news]. Will L G
PS oh, just google for alpha openssl speed rsa
"uNiX pSyChO" <marco@unixpsycho.com> wrote in message
news:ej9bq2-mhu.ln1@xsssvr.xssnet.com...
Quote: DiskMan wrote:
Well this was a question I posted sometime ago and didn't get an
answer... I
went ahead and compiled GCC-4.0.1 and ran a few speed tests, Compaq C
still
dusts it... Hell, in comparison to older releases of GCC there's no
speed
diff at all unless you compare to something ancient like GCC-2.96. Well
I
can dream.... Will L G
post your speed tests. and what did you recompile in order to get this
increase in speed? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| DiskMan |
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2005 5:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Welp, just tried it on GTK, Fluxbox and GCC-4.0 isn't bad.. I notice a
little bit of a speed kick with GTK over the 'regular' compile while Fluxbox
is outrageously snappy but I've yet to test it with another compiler. There
might be a little 'something' to GCC-4.0 afterall... have to test it on a
few more apps and see how it performs... Will L G
"uNiX pSyChO" <marco@unixpsycho.com> wrote in message
news:ej9bq2-mhu.ln1@xsssvr.xssnet.com...
Quote: DiskMan wrote:
Well this was a question I posted sometime ago and didn't get an
answer... I
went ahead and compiled GCC-4.0.1 and ran a few speed tests, Compaq C
still
dusts it... Hell, in comparison to older releases of GCC there's no
speed
diff at all unless you compare to something ancient like GCC-2.96. Well
I
can dream.... Will L G
post your speed tests. and what did you recompile in order to get this
increase in speed? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Måns Rullgård |
| Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 12:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
" DiskMan" <nobody@thewheel.com> writes:
Quote: Welp, just tried it on GTK, Fluxbox and GCC-4.0 isn't bad.. I notice a
little bit of a speed kick with GTK over the 'regular' compile while Fluxbox
is outrageously snappy but I've yet to test it with another compiler. There
might be a little 'something' to GCC-4.0 afterall... have to test it on a
few more apps and see how it performs... Will L G
Test something that's heavy on floating point, like povray.
--
Måns Rullgård
mru@inprovide.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| DiskMan |
| Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 11:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Now thats an idea... I have povray compiled with CCC... just test it against
GCC-4.0.1 and see what it can do... Good idea...
"Måns Rullgård" <mru@inprovide.com> wrote in message
news:yw1xbr4xwcd6.fsf@inprovide.com...
Quote: " DiskMan" <nobody@thewheel.com> writes:
Welp, just tried it on GTK, Fluxbox and GCC-4.0 isn't bad.. I notice a
little bit of a speed kick with GTK over the 'regular' compile while
Fluxbox
is outrageously snappy but I've yet to test it with another compiler.
There
might be a little 'something' to GCC-4.0 afterall... have to test it on
a
few more apps and see how it performs... Will L G
Test something that's heavy on floating point, like povray.
--
Måns Rullgård
mru@inprovide.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| DiskMan |
| Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 5:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Na I didn't use mieee, thought about it though... I do have a few probs with
the CCC/GCC, they will segfault if you use the 'wrong' option in the
povray.ini file. Haven't found a good way around that one... Normally it
will segfault on something called "Parsing 20K tokensSegmentation fault" and
another, something about calculating floats... I don't happen to have a copy
of that one. It affects both CCC and GCC by the way...
Here are the flags that I used to 'decrease' the chances of segfault:
CC="ccache ccc" CXX="ccache cxx" \
CFLAGS="-O5 -inline speed -fast -mtune=pca56 -w -pipe" \
CXXFLAGS="-O5 -inline speed -mtune=pca56 -w -pipe -std ansi \
-ansi_alias -float -fp_reorder -assume trusted_short_alignment \
-ansi_args -intrinsics -D_INTRINSICS -D_FASTMATH -D_INLINE_INTRINSICS \
-nousing_std -D__USE_STD_IOSTREAM" \
./configure \
COMPILED_BY="Will L G <disk*@*.com>" \
--build=alphapca56-alpha-linux-gnu \
--sysconfdir=/etc \
--prefix=/usr \
--enable-static \
--enable-shared \
--disable-dependency-tracking \
--with-x \
--enable-watch-cursor \
--disable-optimiz
"Måns Rullgård" <mru@inprovide.com> wrote in message
news:yw1xhdelod6b.fsf@inprovide.com...
Quote: " DiskMan" <nobody@thewheel.com> writes:
"Måns Rullgård" <mru@inprovide.com> wrote...
" DiskMan" <nobody@thewheel.com> writes:
Welp, just tried it on GTK, Fluxbox and GCC-4.0 isn't bad.. I
notice a little bit of a speed kick with GTK over the 'regular'
compile while Fluxbox is outrageously snappy but I've yet to test
it with another compiler. There might be a little 'something' to
GCC-4.0 afterall... have to test it on a few more apps and see
how it performs... Will L G
Test something that's heavy on floating point, like povray.
Now thats an idea... I have povray compiled with CCC... just test it
against
GCC-4.0.1 and see what it can do... Good idea...
I remember having to use -mieee when compiling povray with ccc.
Otherwise the rendered images would look quite weird. Unfortunately,
-mieee can slow things down a bit. Is that flag still required?
--
Måns Rullgård
mru@inprovide.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Robert M. Riches Jr. |
| Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 7:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
(Top-posting worked around.)
Quote: "Måns Rullgård" <mru@inprovide.com> wrote in message
I remember having to use -mieee when compiling povray with ccc.
Otherwise the rendered images would look quite weird. Unfortunately,
-mieee can slow things down a bit. Is that flag still required?
On 2005-07-23, DiskMan <nobody@thewheel.com> wrote:
Quote: Na I didn't use mieee, thought about it though... I do have a few probs with
the CCC/GCC, they will segfault if you use the 'wrong' option in the
povray.ini file. Haven't found a good way around that one... Normally it
will segfault on something called "Parsing 20K tokensSegmentation fault" and
another, something about calculating floats... I don't happen to have a copy
of that one. It affects both CCC and GCC by the way...
Just in case a bit of tribal knowledge has gone away, back
in the days of RedHat 7.2 on Alpha, it was necessary to use
-mieee when compiling any serious floating point program.
Without that option, a gradual underflow situation will
cause a fault. However, it was a floating point exception,
not a segmentation fault--although the description by
DiskMan does leave a little doubt about that observation.
At the time I asked about the -mieee option, the experts
around at that time said it would slow down the program. I
didn't do a lot of benchmarking, but I did make a few speed
measurements, and I never saw a significant slowdown.
If in doubt, why not compile once with and once without,
then run both programs on the same input and compare results
and CPU time?
Robert Riches
spamtrap42@verizon.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)
(I miss my Alpha...) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
