Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 11:34:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 11:34:30 -0400 Received: from coffee.Psychology.McMaster.CA ([130.113.218.59]:16321 "EHLO coffee.psychology.mcmaster.ca") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 11:34:30 -0400 Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 11:47:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Mark Hahn X-X-Sender: To: Denis Vlasenko cc: Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] Corrected gcc3.2 v gcc2.95.3 contest results In-Reply-To: <200209240850.g8O8odp24965@Port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 931 Lines: 19 > > (And if there's more than a 1% variation between same kernel, compiled > > with different compilers then the test is bust. Kernel CPU time is > > dominated by cache misses and runtime is dominated by IO wait. > > Quality of code generation is of tiny significance) > > Well, not exactly. If it is true that Intel/MS compilers beat GCC > by 30% on code size, 30% smaller kernel ought to make some difference. if you think that's true, then have you tried a modern GCC with -Os? afaikt, this comparison of gcc's is primarily interesting because it might show up some either misoptimizations or perhaps semantic problems in the kernel (ie, perhaps violations of strict aliasing). - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/