lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: gcc 2.95 vs 3.21 performance
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 11:13:31PM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> > I'm afraid it's code generation engine. It is just worse than
> > M$ or Intel's one. It is not easily fixable,
> > GCC folks have tremendous task at hand.
> >
> > I wonder whether some big companies supposedly supporting
> > Linux (e.g. Intel) can help GCC team (for example by giving
> > away some code and/or developer time).
>
> Comparing Intel's compiler vs GCC on Linux would be more interesting.
> Anyone got a copy and some time to burn?

There are already people who have done this, e.g.

http://www.coyotegulch.com/reviews/intel_comp/intel_gcc_bench2.html

compares g++ and Intel's C++ compiler with C++ code.

> M.

cu
Adrian

--

"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:32    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans