Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 16:08:01 -0300 (BRT)
From: Thadeu Penna <tjpp AT if DOT uff DOT br>
To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: pgcc didn't perform for me
In-Reply-To: <20000928190628.G18291@cerebro.laendle>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0009281605000.29640-100000@complex.if.uff.br>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: pgcc AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 28 Sep 2000, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 10:18:24PM -0400, James Wadsley <wadsley AT physun DOT physics DOT mcmaster DOT ca> wrote:
> > I have a high performance tree-code for astrophysical problems and I was
> > running on an AMD-K7 900 MHz.
> 
> Well, that's not a pentium.
> 
> > After my tests I'm not going to simply take your word for
> > it that there is an advantage to pgcc.
> 
> I never gave my word for the amd-k7, esp. since I have no way to test it
> since I do not own such a chip ;)
> 

We have used pgcc-2.95.3 on Athlons with great success (35% or more
compared to gcc). We work on simulations on Statistical Physics  and other
number-crunching Condensed Matter stuff (lot of matrix operations, etc.)
Actually pgcc-2.95.3 is as good as Agcc (Athlon specific patch) that
appeared recently on Freshmeat.

-- 
Thadeu Penna          Linux user #50500      -O) 
Instituto de Fisica -  UFF                   /\\ 
Niteroi -  RJ -                  Brazil     _\/V