X-pop3-spooler: POP3MAIL 2.1.0 b 4 980420 -bs-
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980713185734.00971b60@xs4all.nl>
X-Sender: diep AT xs4all DOT nl
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 18:57:37 +0000
To: Florian Weimer <fw AT cygnus DOT stuttgart DOT netsurf DOT de>
From: Vincent Diepeveen <diep AT xs4all DOT nl>
Subject: Re: executable speed.
Cc: beastium-list AT Desk DOT nl
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: Marc Lehmann <pcg AT goof DOT com>
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1069
Lines: 30

At 06:52 PM 7/13/98 +0200, you wrote:
>Vincent Diepeveen <diep AT xs4all DOT nl> writes:
>
>> I compared speeds between compilers for my chess program at my pentium pro
>> 200Mhz running linux.
>> 
>> Speed of 2.7.2 is 10% slower than msvc++
>
>Did you compare FPU-intensive code?  MSVC uses only 53 bits of
>precision for floats, compared to 64 bit which is traditionally used
>by GNU implementations.

No all integer code. Not a single FPU instruction.

>> Now the weird thing: 2.8.1 is *exactly* as fast as 2.7.2, no matter what
>> optimizations i give it. This is weird.
>
>Did you compare the executables? Do they differ?
>
>I've recently done some OS (and compiler) comparisions using the HINT
>benchmark.  The optimization switches did affect performance, but
>sometimes not in the expected direction.  (No, sorry, no details yet,
>I want to make sure that I can reproduce the results first.)

Interesting idea, i already heart from others that 2.8.1 was no
progression, and i can confirm that.

Too late to compare the executables now because 2.7.2 has gone.

Vincent