[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Gcl-devel] Re: 10%, for what it's worth
From: |
Camm Maguire |
Subject: |
[Gcl-devel] Re: 10%, for what it's worth |
Date: |
26 Aug 2005 17:44:10 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 |
Greetings! Please excuse my silence of late as I've tried to catch up
on work that had accumulated during my vacation.
Robert Boyer <address@hidden> writes:
> It looks like an icc-9 version of GCL is about 9% faster than a gcc version
> on the Nqthm tests under GCL 2.7.0.
>
> ICC
>
> run-gbc time : 2362.520 secs
> child run time : 115.530 secs
> gbc time : 97.970 secs
>
> GCC
>
> run-gbc time : 2447.650 secs
> child run time : 156.270 secs
> gbc time : 215.780 secs
>
> (/ (+ 2447.6 156.2 215.8) (+ 2362.5 115.5 98)) = 1.094
Thank you for these very interesting results!
1) I'd very much be interested in the icc compiler warning output that
bounced in the mail -- perhaps you can tell me where to retrieve!
2) Of course the lion's chare of the improvement is in gc time, and I
bet I know exactly where -- sweeping the relocatable area. I'd
wager icc uses sse and prefetch instructions to do the copy much
faster. Thankfully, we can get the same using pure open source
tools. gcc-4.0 now spits out sse, and even without it we can make
use of atlas tuned blas copy routines. You can confirm/refute in
part by doing objjdump -d gbc.o | grep xmm
3) I'd love to see a breakdown preferably by routine of the run-gbc
time improvements. I don't suppose icc speaks gprof?
Take care,
>
> Bob
>
>
>
--
Camm Maguire address@hidden
==========================================================================
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." -- Baha'u'llah
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- [Gcl-devel] Re: 10%, for what it's worth,
Camm Maguire <=