Hi Nadav, On Sunday 18 Jul 2010 10:03:32 Nadav Har'El wrote: > On Sat, Jul 17, 2010, Shlomi Fish wrote about "New Freecell Solver gcc-4.5.0 vs. LLVM+clang Benchmark": > > On the other hand, with gcc-4.5.0 with "-flto" and "-fwhole-program" > > Freecell Solver ran at 85.1303749084473 seconds. > > > > I admit that I ran the gcc benchmark with a good renice and only in the > > virtual console, while running the LLVM/clang benchmark without a renice > > and in KDE and Compiz, but it still cannot explain the dramatic > > difference. > > Two nitpicks: > > 1. Instead of admitting to not running the two benchmarks in the same > conditions, can't you spare another 85 seconds (!) and run one of them > again?
Yes, I can. I'm on to it, which will take a little longer because I've deleted the svn checkout of LLVM today before I read your E-mail. > > 2. Do you really think that your measurements are accurate down to the > individual picosecond? :-) No, I don't. But that's what I copy and paste from my timing program which is using gettimeofday() and that's what I get after being processed with a Perl script. > > Anyway, I guess that in any case it shows that gcc has nothing to be > ashamed of. Well, at least not in comparison to clang and LLVM. Reportedly, gcc does not yield as good results as, say, Intel's icc. (But see: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/12/1320202&tid=142&tid=118&tid=123 ). Regards, Shlomi Fish -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ Stop Using MSIE - http://www.shlomifish.org/no-ie/ God considered inflicting XSLT as the tenth plague of Egypt, but then decided against it because he thought it would be too evil. Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply . _______________________________________________ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
