Message-Id:	<m0zniWD-000S5EC@inti.gov.ar>
Comments:	Authenticated sender is <salvador AT natacha DOT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
From:	"Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET)" <salvador AT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
Organization:	INTI
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>, djgpp AT delorie DOT com,
	Arthur <arfa AT clara DOT net>, djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Wed, 9 Dec 1998 09:23:46 +0000
MIME-Version:	1.0
Subject:	RE: [Announce] Benchmarks result tested with gcc, egcs and pgcc
References:	<m0zn3T4-000S5eC AT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
In-reply-to:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.981208122218.19046T-100000@is>
X-mailer:	Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54)
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> wrote:
 
> On Mon, 7 Dec 1998, Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET) wrote:
> 
> > In some days I'll upload a new table using geometric average, that's a little 
> > bit better for comparisson in this case (can be much better in other cases).
> 
> What is especially significant is that, while the average performance is 
> almost identical, there's some very large (40% or more!) 

Yes that's clear in the graphic that contains all. 

> differences in 
> several individual tests.  It would be interesting to know whether these 
> tests have any practical implications (e.g., it might be that those tests 
> use code which will rarely happen in real-world programs).

All the algorithms are real-world ones. They are just very well known 
algorithms. Some of them are floating point intensive, others are pure 
integer. All are relative complex and messure the CPU and compiler.

> If the tests are of practical importance, I think it would be interesting
> to know what are the cases where GCC-generated code is much slower than
> Watcom's, and vice versa.  From time to time, people ask here questions 
> about relative performance, and all we usually tell them is ``almost 
> identical''.

Lamentably I don't have a Watcom compiler to see the assembler generated (I 
don't want to disassemble a huge EXE ;-). But if somebody can make it we can 
learn a lot looking at the routines that Watcom optimizes better.
But perhaps we can't get the best of both because the 
differences are in different trade-offs in the design of the optimizer.  

SET
------------------------------------ 0 --------------------------------
Visit my home page: http://set-soft.home.ml.org/
or
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/6552/
Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET). (Electronics Engineer)
Alternative e-mail: set-soft AT usa DOT net set AT computer DOT org
ICQ: 2951574
Address: Curapaligue 2124, Caseros, 3 de Febrero
Buenos Aires, (1678), ARGENTINA
TE: +(541) 759 0013

- Raw text -