Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 12:26:31 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: "Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET)" <salvador AT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
cc: Arthur <arfa AT clara DOT net>, djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: RE: [Announce] Benchmarks result tested with gcc, egcs and pgcc 
In-Reply-To: <m0zn3T4-000S5eC@inti.gov.ar>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.981208122218.19046T-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com


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!) 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).

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''.