Article: MAQSIP-RT: An HPC Benchmark
By: ? (0xe2.0x9a.0x9b.delete@this.gmail.com), June 24, 2010 4:15 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
Gabriele Svelto (gabriele.svelto@gmail.com) on 6/24/10 wrote:
---------------------------
>? (0xe2.0x9a.0x9b@gmail.com) on 6/24/10 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>About LTO: I don't expect it to work this year, and I will be surprised if it works OK by the end of 2011.
>
>I suppose it will be very usable in 4.5.1, the in-the-field testing should do a
>lot of good. For structural improvements to LTO however you'll have to wait for 4.6.
4.5.1: Is your prediction backed by some concrete evidence, or are you backing it by the "in-the-field testing" only? I would like GCC to have good LTO, but as I already said I am skeptical about it.
(By "good LTO" I mean that you would be able, for example, to compile the whole KDE without any issues).
---------------------------
>? (0xe2.0x9a.0x9b@gmail.com) on 6/24/10 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>About LTO: I don't expect it to work this year, and I will be surprised if it works OK by the end of 2011.
>
>I suppose it will be very usable in 4.5.1, the in-the-field testing should do a
>lot of good. For structural improvements to LTO however you'll have to wait for 4.6.
4.5.1: Is your prediction backed by some concrete evidence, or are you backing it by the "in-the-field testing" only? I would like GCC to have good LTO, but as I already said I am skeptical about it.
(By "good LTO" I mean that you would be able, for example, to compile the whole KDE without any issues).
Topic | Posted By | Date |
---|---|---|
New article online: MAQSIP RT | David Kanter | 2010/06/21 11:57 AM |
Why no GCC? | Rohit | 2010/06/22 09:25 PM |
Why no GCC? | David Kanter | 2010/06/23 12:45 AM |
sun 's cc better than GCC? | Rohit | 2010/06/23 05:04 AM |
sun 's cc better than GCC? | anon | 2010/06/23 07:49 AM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | Mark Roulo | 2010/06/23 10:42 AM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | Vincent Diepeveen | 2010/06/23 02:49 PM |
even for 64-bit arch? | anon | 2010/06/23 02:59 PM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | ajensen | 2010/06/23 11:03 PM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | Gabriele Svelto | 2010/06/24 02:33 AM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | ajensen | 2010/06/24 05:32 AM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | Gabriele Svelto | 2010/06/24 07:18 AM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | ajensen | 2010/06/24 09:50 AM |
Why GCC is big and complicated (my guess) | Mark Roulo | 2010/06/24 12:17 PM |
Why GCC is big and complicated (my guess) | Gabriele Svelto | 2010/06/28 04:00 AM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | Bernd Schmidt | 2010/06/24 05:46 AM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | ajensen | 2010/06/24 09:43 AM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | Vincent Diepeveen | 2010/06/26 02:12 PM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | Rob Thorpe | 2010/06/24 07:47 AM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | Anon | 2010/06/24 05:23 PM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | Gabriele Svelto | 2010/06/23 10:45 PM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | ? | 2010/06/24 01:48 AM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | Gabriele Svelto | 2010/06/24 02:29 AM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | ? | 2010/06/24 03:13 AM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | Andi Kleen | 2010/06/24 03:15 AM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | ? | 2010/06/24 04:08 AM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | Gabriele Svelto | 2010/06/24 03:54 AM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | ? | 2010/06/24 04:15 AM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | Gabriele Svelto | 2010/06/24 07:22 AM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | Rohit | 2010/06/24 03:04 AM |
Placebo effect | ? | 2010/06/24 06:37 AM |
Placebo effect | Rohit | 2010/06/24 08:45 AM |
Placebo effect | Vincent Diepeveen | 2010/06/26 02:50 PM |
Compile time | Mark Roulo | 2010/06/26 05:28 PM |
Compile time | Richard Cownie | 2010/06/27 04:44 AM |
Compile time | Mark Roulo | 2010/06/27 10:12 AM |
Compile time | Mark Roulo | 2010/06/27 10:21 AM |
Compile time | EduardoS | 2010/06/27 11:37 AM |
Compile time | Richard Cownie | 2010/06/27 04:07 PM |
Compile time & efficiency | ? | 2010/06/28 12:03 AM |
Compile time & efficiency | Mark Christiansen | 2010/06/28 06:08 AM |
Compile time & efficiency | Linus Torvalds | 2010/06/28 07:48 AM |
kernel programming language | John Simon | 2010/06/29 06:46 PM |
Compile time & efficiency | Richard Cownie | 2010/06/28 09:29 AM |
Compile time & efficiency | Linus Torvalds | 2010/06/28 11:17 AM |
Compile time & efficiency | Richard Cownie | 2010/06/28 02:16 PM |
Compile time & efficiency | Richard Cownie | 2010/06/28 06:23 PM |
Compile time & efficiency | Mark Roulo | 2010/06/29 08:31 AM |
Compile time & efficiency | Richard Cownie | 2010/06/29 11:48 AM |
Compile time & efficiency | rwessel | 2010/06/29 12:28 PM |
C is a crappy | dev | 2010/06/29 07:12 PM |
C is a crappy, but only when you push it out of it's niche | Rohit | 2010/06/30 02:11 AM |
C is a crappy | anon | 2010/06/30 02:17 AM |
C is a crappy | dev | 2010/06/30 07:59 AM |
C is a crappy | Max | 2010/07/01 04:30 AM |
C is a crappy | Michael S | 2010/07/01 07:00 AM |
C is a crappy | Konrad Schwarz | 2010/07/01 08:02 AM |
C is a crappy | Michael S | 2010/07/01 08:50 AM |
C isn't so crappy | anon | 2010/07/01 10:11 AM |
C isn't so crappy | Mikael Tillenius | 2010/07/01 11:39 AM |
C is a crappy | Konrad Schwarz | 2010/07/01 11:22 AM |
C is a crappy | Max | 2010/07/02 08:44 AM |
C is a crappy | rwessel | 2010/07/02 12:33 PM |
C is a crappy | anon | 2010/07/02 01:17 PM |
C is a crappy | Max | 2010/07/02 02:56 PM |
C is a crappy | Max | 2010/07/02 03:13 PM |
C is a crappy | rwessel | 2010/07/02 03:32 PM |
C is a crappy | Max | 2010/07/02 04:19 PM |
C is a crappy | Gabriele Svelto | 2010/07/05 05:25 AM |
C is a crappy | gallier2 | 2010/07/02 12:14 AM |
C is a crappy | Ian Ollmann | 2010/07/06 03:07 PM |
Portability | Max | 2010/07/06 03:37 PM |
C is a crappy | hobold | 2010/07/07 02:31 AM |
C is a crappy | Ian Ollmann | 2010/07/07 05:18 PM |
failure to standardize types | Carlie Coats | 2010/07/07 04:11 AM |
C is a crappy | Konrad Schwarz | 2010/07/07 08:34 AM |
C is a crappy | Ian Ollmann | 2010/07/07 05:29 PM |
C is a crappy NOT | Konrad Schwarz | 2010/07/08 12:29 AM |
C is a crappy | anon | 2010/07/01 10:40 PM |
C type safety | ? | 2010/07/02 01:10 AM |
C type safety | anon | 2010/07/02 11:02 PM |
C is a crappy | dev | 2010/07/03 04:51 PM |
C is a crappy | anon | 2010/07/03 07:02 PM |
C is a crappy | dev | 2010/07/05 07:27 AM |
C is a crappy | ? | 2010/07/05 09:05 AM |
C is a crappy | anonymous | 2010/07/07 08:32 AM |
C is a crappy | ? | 2010/07/07 10:48 PM |
C is a crappy | Anon | 2010/07/08 12:53 AM |
C is a crappy and a crappie is a fish | anonymous | 2010/07/03 07:24 PM |
Compile time & efficiency | Michael S | 2010/06/29 03:18 AM |
Compile time & efficiency | rwessel | 2010/06/29 12:20 PM |
Compile time & efficiency | someone | 2010/06/30 11:03 AM |
Compile time & efficiency | Jouni Osmala | 2010/07/02 05:29 AM |
Compile time & efficiency | Max | 2010/06/28 05:05 PM |
Compile time & efficiency | EduardoS | 2010/06/28 05:11 PM |
Compile time & efficiency | Michael S | 2010/06/29 03:33 AM |
Compile time | Foo_ | 2010/06/28 09:03 AM |
sun 's cc better than GCC? | Silent | 2010/06/23 06:19 PM |
sun 's cc better than GCC? | Foo_ | 2010/06/23 07:06 PM |
sun 's cc better than GCC? | Andi Kleen | 2010/06/24 02:49 AM |
sun 's versus gcc | Vincent Diepeveen | 2010/06/23 03:07 PM |
Why no GCC? | Carlie Coats | 2010/06/23 05:11 AM |