Re why not more discussion... Well, one reason might be that this is topic belongs on the R-devel mailing list.
(Are you really thinking that this is a "free" boost with so many packages that need source edits to compile with the new compilers? There are over 5000 packages on CRAN... are you sending patches to all those maintainers?) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Newmiller The ..... ..... Go Live... DCN:<jdnew...@dcn.davis.ca.us> Basics: ##.#. ##.#. Live Go... Live: OO#.. Dead: OO#.. Playing Research Engineer (Solar/Batteries O.O#. #.O#. with /Software/Embedded Controllers) .OO#. .OO#. rocks...1k --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity. On August 6, 2014 1:22:42 AM PDT, "Amos B. Elberg" <amos.elb...@gmail.com> wrote: >I���m working on a Mac so ymmv, but I���ve been running benchmarks of >vanilla R from cran vs. recompiles with different versions of gcc and >R, and I see a speedup of 20-30% vs the cran binary after recompiling >with gnu 4.9. ��Its quite distinct. �� > >Each jump in gcc revision (4.7-4.8, 4.8-4.9) seems to improve benchmark >performance by around 10% over the previous generation. �� > >So there may be advantages to recompiling yourself. > >On the other hand, there may be potential issues compiling some >packages. ��Some of the benchmarking I���ve been doing is 3.1.1 vs. pqR >(distinctly faster than 3.1.1, even without ���helper threads���), >which is based on R 2.15.0, which in turn forces you to use older >versions of some packages, some of which have language-compatibility >issues with recent compilers. ��The version of Rcpp that accepts R >2.15.0, for example, won���t compile against gcc 4.9. ��You may find >that the current versions of other packages have similar issues with >recent gnu compilers, I can���t say. �� > >I���m surprised, frankly, that there isn���t more discussion of this, >considering the size of the data and complexity of the problems people >are feeding into R, and the possibility of essentially ���free��� >performance boosts. > >--�� >Amos Elberg >Sent with Airmail > >From:��Rguy <r...@123mail.org> >Reply:��Rguy <r...@123mail.org>> >Date:��August 6, 2014 at 2:47:47 AM >To:��r-help@r-project.org <r-help@r-project.org>> >Subject:�� [R] Old g++ in Rtools > >I recently downloaded Rtools. I see the g++ version is >gcc version 4.6.3 20111208 (prerelease) (GCC) > >I also recently downloaded MinGW. Its version of g++ is >gcc version 4.8.1 (GCC) > >I believe that later versions of g++ provide better support for C++11. > >Why does Rtools provide a version considerably older than the latest? >Any plans to update the version? >Is it bad practice to compile with a later version when interfacing >with R? > >[[alternative HTML version deleted]] > >______________________________________________ >R-help@r-project.org mailing list >https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help >PLEASE do read the posting guide >http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html >and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. > > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >______________________________________________ >R-help@r-project.org mailing list >https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help >PLEASE do read the posting guide >http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html >and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.