bakaneko (nyan.delete@this.hyan.wan) on July 15, 2013 2:03 am wrote:
> 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.

What a lot of blinkered BS..

Care to explain then why a non standard android compiler was used with selected high optimisation flags (ICC does none of this by default..) for the intel path, and the completely default gcc was used for the arm path with zero attempt to even set a flag?

The compilers abilities means nothing here, the methodology of building the benchmark is where the 'cheating' happened. Do you not understand that?