Article: MAQSIP-RT: An HPC Benchmark
By: Gabriele Svelto (gabriele.svelto.delete@this.gmail.com), June 24, 2010 1:29 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
? (0xe2.0x9a.0x9b@gmail.com) on 6/24/10 wrote:
---------------------------
>1. My impression is that the Linux programs typically found in a Linux distribution
>have approximately the *same* performance regardless of whether they are compiled
>with GCC 3.4, 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 or 4.5. As another example, when I switched
>my application from GCC 4.4 to GCC 4.5 I did *not* notice any significant performance
>boost. Is your experience different?
It depends on the application and on also on your target architecture.
>2. As far as my experience goes, LTO:
>
>- does not bring about the expected results (assembler code)
I've did only some testing, for performance I would have expected better results but for code size I've noticed some very nice improvements I expected to be there.
>- is buggy
True, like pretty much every other GCC with a version number ending with a 0. It's supposed to be that way because even though the test suite is huge and exhaustive they cannot test all possible scenarios on all combinations of target architectures, operating system and option flags.
>Bottom line: Not counting the support for new C/C++ features, how exactly is GCC 4.5 better than GCC 3.4 ?
Well, if you look at GCC development features and architecture support *are* the most important things that have been added to GCC, utmost performance is important for only a very limited amount of people. That said FP codes on PowerPC processors are going to be *much* faster on GCC 4.5 than 3.4 for example. If performance hasn't improved in your particular combination of code and target architecture that doesn't mean there wasn't any improvements overall.
---------------------------
>1. My impression is that the Linux programs typically found in a Linux distribution
>have approximately the *same* performance regardless of whether they are compiled
>with GCC 3.4, 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 or 4.5. As another example, when I switched
>my application from GCC 4.4 to GCC 4.5 I did *not* notice any significant performance
>boost. Is your experience different?
It depends on the application and on also on your target architecture.
>2. As far as my experience goes, LTO:
>
>- does not bring about the expected results (assembler code)
I've did only some testing, for performance I would have expected better results but for code size I've noticed some very nice improvements I expected to be there.
>- is buggy
True, like pretty much every other GCC with a version number ending with a 0. It's supposed to be that way because even though the test suite is huge and exhaustive they cannot test all possible scenarios on all combinations of target architectures, operating system and option flags.
>Bottom line: Not counting the support for new C/C++ features, how exactly is GCC 4.5 better than GCC 3.4 ?
Well, if you look at GCC development features and architecture support *are* the most important things that have been added to GCC, utmost performance is important for only a very limited amount of people. That said FP codes on PowerPC processors are going to be *much* faster on GCC 4.5 than 3.4 for example. If performance hasn't improved in your particular combination of code and target architecture that doesn't mean there wasn't any improvements overall.
Topic | Posted By | Date |
---|---|---|
New article online: MAQSIP RT | David Kanter | 2010/06/21 10:57 AM |
Why no GCC? | Rohit | 2010/06/22 08:25 PM |
Why no GCC? | David Kanter | 2010/06/22 11:45 PM |
sun 's cc better than GCC? | Rohit | 2010/06/23 04:04 AM |
sun 's cc better than GCC? | anon | 2010/06/23 06:49 AM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | Mark Roulo | 2010/06/23 09:42 AM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | Vincent Diepeveen | 2010/06/23 01:49 PM |
even for 64-bit arch? | anon | 2010/06/23 01:59 PM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | ajensen | 2010/06/23 10:03 PM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | Gabriele Svelto | 2010/06/24 01:33 AM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | ajensen | 2010/06/24 04:32 AM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | Gabriele Svelto | 2010/06/24 06:18 AM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | ajensen | 2010/06/24 08:50 AM |
Why GCC is big and complicated (my guess) | Mark Roulo | 2010/06/24 11:17 AM |
Why GCC is big and complicated (my guess) | Gabriele Svelto | 2010/06/28 03:00 AM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | Bernd Schmidt | 2010/06/24 04:46 AM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | ajensen | 2010/06/24 08:43 AM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | Vincent Diepeveen | 2010/06/26 01:12 PM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | Rob Thorpe | 2010/06/24 06:47 AM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | Anon | 2010/06/24 04:23 PM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | Gabriele Svelto | 2010/06/23 09:45 PM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | ? | 2010/06/24 12:48 AM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | Gabriele Svelto | 2010/06/24 01:29 AM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | ? | 2010/06/24 02:13 AM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | Andi Kleen | 2010/06/24 02:15 AM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | ? | 2010/06/24 03:08 AM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | Gabriele Svelto | 2010/06/24 02:54 AM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | ? | 2010/06/24 03:15 AM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | Gabriele Svelto | 2010/06/24 06:22 AM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | Rohit | 2010/06/24 02:04 AM |
Placebo effect | ? | 2010/06/24 05:37 AM |
Placebo effect | Rohit | 2010/06/24 07:45 AM |
Placebo effect | Vincent Diepeveen | 2010/06/26 01:50 PM |
Compile time | Mark Roulo | 2010/06/26 04:28 PM |
Compile time | Richard Cownie | 2010/06/27 03:44 AM |
Compile time | Mark Roulo | 2010/06/27 09:12 AM |
Compile time | Mark Roulo | 2010/06/27 09:21 AM |
Compile time | EduardoS | 2010/06/27 10:37 AM |
Compile time | Richard Cownie | 2010/06/27 03:07 PM |
Compile time & efficiency | ? | 2010/06/27 11:03 PM |
Compile time & efficiency | Mark Christiansen | 2010/06/28 05:08 AM |
Compile time & efficiency | Linus Torvalds | 2010/06/28 06:48 AM |
kernel programming language | John Simon | 2010/06/29 05:46 PM |
Compile time & efficiency | Richard Cownie | 2010/06/28 08:29 AM |
Compile time & efficiency | Linus Torvalds | 2010/06/28 10:17 AM |
Compile time & efficiency | Richard Cownie | 2010/06/28 01:16 PM |
Compile time & efficiency | Richard Cownie | 2010/06/28 05:23 PM |
Compile time & efficiency | Mark Roulo | 2010/06/29 07:31 AM |
Compile time & efficiency | Richard Cownie | 2010/06/29 10:48 AM |
Compile time & efficiency | rwessel | 2010/06/29 11:28 AM |
C is a crappy | dev | 2010/06/29 06:12 PM |
C is a crappy, but only when you push it out of it's niche | Rohit | 2010/06/30 01:11 AM |
C is a crappy | anon | 2010/06/30 01:17 AM |
C is a crappy | dev | 2010/06/30 06:59 AM |
C is a crappy | Max | 2010/07/01 03:30 AM |
C is a crappy | Michael S | 2010/07/01 06:00 AM |
C is a crappy | Konrad Schwarz | 2010/07/01 07:02 AM |
C is a crappy | Michael S | 2010/07/01 07:50 AM |
C isn't so crappy | anon | 2010/07/01 09:11 AM |
C isn't so crappy | Mikael Tillenius | 2010/07/01 10:39 AM |
C is a crappy | Konrad Schwarz | 2010/07/01 10:22 AM |
C is a crappy | Max | 2010/07/02 07:44 AM |
C is a crappy | rwessel | 2010/07/02 11:33 AM |
C is a crappy | anon | 2010/07/02 12:17 PM |
C is a crappy | Max | 2010/07/02 01:56 PM |
C is a crappy | Max | 2010/07/02 02:13 PM |
C is a crappy | rwessel | 2010/07/02 02:32 PM |
C is a crappy | Max | 2010/07/02 03:19 PM |
C is a crappy | Gabriele Svelto | 2010/07/05 04:25 AM |
C is a crappy | gallier2 | 2010/07/01 11:14 PM |
C is a crappy | Ian Ollmann | 2010/07/06 02:07 PM |
Portability | Max | 2010/07/06 02:37 PM |
C is a crappy | hobold | 2010/07/07 01:31 AM |
C is a crappy | Ian Ollmann | 2010/07/07 04:18 PM |
failure to standardize types | Carlie Coats | 2010/07/07 03:11 AM |
C is a crappy | Konrad Schwarz | 2010/07/07 07:34 AM |
C is a crappy | Ian Ollmann | 2010/07/07 04:29 PM |
C is a crappy NOT | Konrad Schwarz | 2010/07/07 11:29 PM |
C is a crappy | anon | 2010/07/01 09:40 PM |
C type safety | ? | 2010/07/02 12:10 AM |
C type safety | anon | 2010/07/02 10:02 PM |
C is a crappy | dev | 2010/07/03 03:51 PM |
C is a crappy | anon | 2010/07/03 06:02 PM |
C is a crappy | dev | 2010/07/05 06:27 AM |
C is a crappy | ? | 2010/07/05 08:05 AM |
C is a crappy | anonymous | 2010/07/07 07:32 AM |
C is a crappy | ? | 2010/07/07 09:48 PM |
C is a crappy | Anon | 2010/07/07 11:53 PM |
C is a crappy and a crappie is a fish | anonymous | 2010/07/03 06:24 PM |
Compile time & efficiency | Michael S | 2010/06/29 02:18 AM |
Compile time & efficiency | rwessel | 2010/06/29 11:20 AM |
Compile time & efficiency | someone | 2010/06/30 10:03 AM |
Compile time & efficiency | Jouni Osmala | 2010/07/02 04:29 AM |
Compile time & efficiency | Max | 2010/06/28 04:05 PM |
Compile time & efficiency | EduardoS | 2010/06/28 04:11 PM |
Compile time & efficiency | Michael S | 2010/06/29 02:33 AM |
Compile time | Foo_ | 2010/06/28 08:03 AM |
sun 's cc better than GCC? | Silent | 2010/06/23 05:19 PM |
sun 's cc better than GCC? | Foo_ | 2010/06/23 06:06 PM |
sun 's cc better than GCC? | Andi Kleen | 2010/06/24 01:49 AM |
sun 's versus gcc | Vincent Diepeveen | 2010/06/23 02:07 PM |
Why no GCC? | Carlie Coats | 2010/06/23 04:11 AM |