On 5/3/05, Scott Robert Ladd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> tbp wrote:
> Granted, POV-Ray may not be state-of-the-art, but then, I know quite a
> few people who say that (even legitimately) about just about every
> software product in existence.
True. Still, POV has evolved from dkbtrace and it shows
On May 3, 2005, at 4:54 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 04:45:55PM -0400, Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
If you have a suggestion for better benchmarks, I'm listening. Is
your
ray tracer available?
I recently heard of Openbench, a project to create an open
version of the SPEC benchm
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 04:45:55PM -0400, Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
> If you have a suggestion for better benchmarks, I'm listening. Is your
> ray tracer available?
>
I recently heard of Openbench, a project to create an open
version of the SPEC benchmarks http://www.exactcode.de/oss/openbench/
tbp wrote:
On 4/29/05, Uros Bizjak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello Scott!
Hello Scott & Uros,
Specifically, the -funsafe-math-optimizations flag doesn't work
correctly on AMD64 because the default on that platform is
-mfpmath=sse. Without specifying -mfpmath=387,
-funsafe-math-optimizat
On 5/2/05, Scott Robert Ladd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You might want to a look at my just-published review of GCC 4.0, where I
> compare it's performance on some well-known applications, including LAME
> and POV-Ray, on Pentium 4 and Opteron. In terms of POV-Ray, 4.0 produced
> a smaller execut
tbp wrote:
Shameless plug with my own performance analysis regarding SSE on x86-64.
I've ported my coherent raytracer which mostly uses intrinsics in the
hot path (and no transcendentals).
While gcc4.x compiled binaries are ~5% slower than those compiled with
icc8.1 on ia32 (best case), it's the ot
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
> I've been down (due to illness) for a couple of months, so I don't know
> if folk here are aware of something I discovered about GCC 4.0 on AMD64:
> -ffast-math is "broken" on AMD64/x86_64.
Hi Scott,
I was wondering if you could do some investigati
On 4/29/05, Uros Bizjak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Scott!
Hello Scott & Uros,
> > Specifically, the -funsafe-math-optimizations flag doesn't work
> > correctly on AMD64 because the default on that platform is
> > -mfpmath=sse. Without specifying -mfpmath=387,
> > -funsafe-math-optimizatio
Uros Bizjak wrote:
Hello Scott!
Specifically, the -funsafe-math-optimizations flag doesn't work
correctly on AMD64 because the default on that platform is
-mfpmath=sse. Without specifying -mfpmath=387,
-funsafe-math-optimizations does not generate inline processor
instructions for most floating
Hello Scott!
Specifically, the -funsafe-math-optimizations flag doesn't work
correctly on AMD64 because the default on that platform is
-mfpmath=sse. Without specifying -mfpmath=387,
-funsafe-math-optimizations does not generate inline processor
instructions for most floating-point functions.
Hello,
I've been down (due to illness) for a couple of months, so I don't know
if folk here are aware of something I discovered about GCC 4.0 on AMD64:
-ffast-math is "broken" on AMD64/x86_64.
Specifically, the -funsafe-math-optimizations flag doesn't work
correctly on AMD64 because the default
11 matches
Mail list logo
