By: bakaneko (nyan.delete@this.hyan.wan), July 15, 2013 1:03 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
Steve (sberens.Throwaway.delete@this.gmail.com) on July 14, 2013 8:10 pm wrote:
> > > No. It shows that Intel's optimization is still superior to others. (Closest one is VC not GCC/CLANG)
> >
>
> Actually Intel's optimization is still superior in one way. Removal of code
> that is actually needed in benchmarks thus inflating benchmark results to beat
> the competition then post said tainted results or hire a lacky to do it.
No, it's not lackeys, or evil conspiracies.
The compiler does it because this is what expected
from it while compiling normal programs.
The opposite could be made out: Programming
languages don't have anti-optimization features
for writing benchmarks. But that hits all
compilers.
> > > No. It shows that Intel's optimization is still superior to others. (Closest one is VC not GCC/CLANG)
> >
>
> Actually Intel's optimization is still superior in one way. Removal of code
> that is actually needed in benchmarks thus inflating benchmark results to beat
> the competition then post said tainted results or hire a lacky to do it.
No, it's not lackeys, or evil conspiracies.
The compiler does it because this is what expected
from it while compiling normal programs.
The opposite could be made out: Programming
languages don't have anti-optimization features
for writing benchmarks. But that hits all
compilers.
