Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 22:22:41 -0500 From: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@online.fr> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter Message-ID: <20030105032240.GA61720@papagena.rockefeller.edu> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20030104201251.029387d0@localhost> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20030104112015.026a5530@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20030104201251.029387d0@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brett Glass said on Jan 4, 2003 at 20:15:06: > >GCC 3.2.1 seems to perform around as well, on my code, as Intel's > >compiler. > > Depends on your code. A program consisting mostly of function calls > isn't going to be much of a challenge for any compiler. But try some > serious nested loops, or floating point, Exactly what I do (physics simulations). > and GCC generates about the > most naive code you could imagine. So you disassembled and examined it? Or did you benchmark it? Where are your benchmarks? Other people have already put up theirs. Or perhaps you looked at the gcc source code and found bugs in it? Where are your patches? Many FreeBSD users would be interested, if there really is a performance improvement. > You could do better dashing it off in assembly language. Well, that's always true. No compiler can beat well-written assembly language. - Rahul To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030105032240.GA61720>