Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 17:06:16 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 17:06:08 -0500 Received: from cogent.ecohler.net ([216.135.202.106]:63369 "EHLO cogent.ecohler.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 17:05:55 -0500 Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 17:05:53 -0500 From: lists@sapience.com To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Sebastian Heidl Subject: Re: Intel compiler [Re: Using %cr2 to reference "current"] Message-ID: <20011107170553.A21740@sapience.com> In-Reply-To: <3BE94C55.AE42D67E@evision-ventures.com> <20011107153946.T552@csr-pc1.zib.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20011107153946.T552@csr-pc1.zib.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23-current-20011027i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Just as another data point - a simple test, I ran intel compiler on flops v2. Run 3 ways - gcc3, icc (v 5) and the beta 6 icc. All run on dual p4 with 1 Gb mem on Rh 7.2 At least on this test the differences are quite dramatic. Regards, gene/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary ------ gcc -DUNIX -O3 -march=i686 flops2.c icc -xMKW -o flops2 -DUNIX -O3 flops2.c FLOPS C Program (Double Precision), V2.0 18 Dec 1992 Module MFLOPS gcc icc 5 icc 6 -------- --------- ---------- 1 444.9410 439.4850 674.3180 2 265.4815 362.3862 362.3862 3 298.1843 604.0250 1270.6569 4 337.7309 1224.8804 1373.8819 5 392.7003 1138.6503 1131.7073 6 391.7678 1334.0521 1422.2222 7 163.5783 193.3900 193.5118 8 395.7743 1317.3242 1372.6542 Iterations = 512000000 512000000 512000000 NullTime (usec) = 0.0029 0.0000 0.0000 MFLOPS(1) = 275.3542 416.9120 472.8952 MFLOPS(2) = 264.7165 413.4297 448.2175 MFLOPS(3) = 339.5966 714.7146 834.5651 MFLOPS(4) = 362.1891 1071.8196 1367.5374 --------------------------------------------------------------------- On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 03:39:46PM +0100, Sebastian Heidl wrote: > On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 02:17:33PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > > > somehow encouraged by the compiler comparisions between gcc and intel's > > > free compiler, which use the register passing for anything local > > > to the actual code, where the speed gains are up to 20% im currently > > > > I was under the impression intels compiler was profoundly non-free ? > > have a look: > http://developer.intel.com/software/products/eval/ - 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/