Daniel Berlin wrote:
On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 17:17 -0700, James E Wilson wrote:
Their web pages primarily talk about the 64-bit performance on AMD
systems. Maybe they aren't well tuned for 32-bit performance and/or
Intel parts. Anyways, from what Daniel Berlin mentioned, it may be that
the t
Vladimir Makarov wrote:
I heard a lot of this compiler and expected a better results for it.
Using -O2 -mtune=nocona for gcc4 and -O2 -mtune=em64t for open64 on
em64t machine in 32-bit mode, I found preliminarily that pathscale
compiler generates about 10% worse and 30% larger code (text segm
Their web pages primarily talk about the 64-bit performance on AMD
systems. Maybe they aren't well tuned for 32-bit performance and/or
Intel parts. Anyways, from what Daniel Berlin mentioned, it may be
that
the tree-ssa stuff in gcc4.x has negated much of their earlier
advantage.
I would
On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 17:17 -0700, James E Wilson wrote:
> Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> > I just hope results
> > for 64-bit mode, amd machine, or SPECFP2000 are better.
>
> Their web pages primarily talk about the 64-bit performance on AMD
> systems. Maybe they aren't well tuned for 32-bit perfor
Vladimir Makarov wrote:
I just hope results
for 64-bit mode, amd machine, or SPECFP2000 are better.
Their web pages primarily talk about the 64-bit performance on AMD
systems. Maybe they aren't well tuned for 32-bit performance and/or
Intel parts. Anyways, from what Daniel Berlin mentioned,
On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 18:23 -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> James E Wilson wrote:
>
> > Daniel Berlin wrote:
> >
> >> A bunch of random code #ifdef KEY'd
> >
> >
> > FYI Pathscale was formerly known as Key Research. So the KEY probably
> > wouldn't mean anything special here, it is likely just
James E Wilson wrote:
Daniel Berlin wrote:
A bunch of random code #ifdef KEY'd
FYI Pathscale was formerly known as Key Research. So the KEY probably
wouldn't mean anything special here, it is likely just a marker for
local changes.
I heard a lot of this compiler and expected a better r
Daniel Berlin wrote:
A bunch of random code #ifdef KEY'd
FYI Pathscale was formerly known as Key Research. So the KEY probably
wouldn't mean anything special here, it is likely just a marker for
local changes.
--
Jim Wilson, GNU Tools Support, http://www.SpecifixInc.com
On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 14:01 -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> Marc Gonzalez-Sigler wrote:
>
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> >
> > I've taken PathScale's source tree (they've removed the IA-64 code
> > generator, and added an x86/AMD64 code generator), and tweaked the
> > Makefiles.
> >
> > I thought so
Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> Marc Gonzalez-Sigler wrote:
>
>> I've taken PathScale's source tree (they've removed the IA-64 code
>> generator, and added an x86/AMD64 code generator), and tweaked the
>> Makefiles.
>>
>> I thought some of you might want to take a look at the compiler.
>>
>> http://www
Marc Gonzalez-Sigler wrote:
Hello everyone,
I've taken PathScale's source tree (they've removed the IA-64 code
generator, and added an x86/AMD64 code generator), and tweaked the
Makefiles.
I thought some of you might want to take a look at the compiler.
http://www-rocq.inria.fr/~gonzalez/
Hello everyone,
In 2000, SGI released a GPLed compiler suite.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2000-05/threads.html#00632
http://web.archive.org/www.sgi.com/newsroom/press_releases/2000/may/linux-ia64.html
I've taken PathScale's source tree (they've removed the IA-64 code
generator, and added an x86/A
12 matches
Mail list logo
