Comparing Linux C and C++ Compilers: Benchmarks and Analysis

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by Scott Robert Ladd, Sep 18, 2004.

  1. Hello,

    I've posted a comparison of recent GCC versions (3.3, 3.4, and the
    coming 4.0) with Intel C++ 8.1, including several benchmarks and
    "state-of-the-product" reviews. You can find the article at:

    http://www.coyotegulch.com/reviews/linux_compilers/

    The above article replaces an older article I published in late 2002. This
    new comparison marks what I hope will be an ongoing series that tracks the
    quality of Linux compilers.

    ...Scott

    --
    Scott Robert Ladd
    site: http://www.coyotegulch.com
    blog: http://chaoticcoyote.blogspot.com
     
    Scott Robert Ladd, Sep 18, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Scott Robert Ladd

    CBFalconer Guest

    Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
    >
    > I've posted a comparison of recent GCC versions (3.3, 3.4, and
    > the coming 4.0) with Intel C++ 8.1, including several benchmarks
    > and "state-of-the-product" reviews. You can find the article at:
    >
    > http://www.coyotegulch.com/reviews/linux_compilers/
    >
    > The above article replaces an older article I published in late
    > 2002. This new comparison marks what I hope will be an ongoing
    > series that tracks the quality of Linux compilers.


    FYI the above produces peculiar results, like an overprint, when
    received here with Netscape 4.75 under W98. Has it been passed
    through html verification?

    It neglects to show the optimization levels etc. used in running
    gcc. The complete command line would be useful. You are aware
    than gcc can also be told to use various instruction sets, from
    the 386 onwards?

    --
    "This is a wonderful answer. It's off-topic, it's incorrect,
    and it doesn't answer the question." -- Richard Heathfield

    "I support the Red Sox and any team that beats the Yankees"
     
    CBFalconer, Sep 18, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 21:05:25 +0000, CBFalconer wrote:
    > FYI the above produces peculiar results, like an overprint, when
    > received here with Netscape 4.75 under W98. Has it been passed through
    > html verification?


    The web page uses XHTML formatting in the tables; it works fine with
    Firefox 0.9.3 and 1.0PR, IE 6, and Konqueror 3.3, and Mozilla 1.7. I don't
    have Netscape installed anywhere. The page passed a "tidy" test on in
    Quanta Plus, my web editor.

    > It neglects to show the optimization levels etc. used in running gcc.
    > The complete command line would be useful. You are aware than gcc can
    > also be told to use various instruction sets, from the 386 onwards?


    Yes, the article *does* show the switches used, in the section on "Test
    Methods."

    I compiled for the native instruction set of the target processor (using
    -march=opteron and -march=pentium4, as appropriate). Again, this is stated
    in the article. To quote from the article:

    * for all GCC versions on Pentium 4:
    -march=pentium4 -mfpmath=sse -fomit-frame-pointer -ffast-math -O3
    * for GCC 3.4 and 4.0 on Opteron:
    -march=opteron -ffast-math -O3
    * for GCC 3.3 on Opteron:
    -march=athlon-xp -ffast-math -O3
    * for Intel C++ on Pentium 4:
    icc -O3 -xN -tpp7 -ipo


    --
    Scott Robert Ladd
    site: http://www.coyotegulch.com
    blog: http://chaoticcoyote.blogspot.com
     
    Scott Robert Ladd, Sep 18, 2004
    #3
  4. Scott Robert Ladd

    pete Guest

    [ot]Re: Comparing Linux C and C++ Compilers: Benchmarks and Analysis

    Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
    >
    > On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 21:05:25 +0000, CBFalconer wrote:
    > > FYI the above produces peculiar results, like an overprint, when
    > > received here with Netscape 4.75 under W98.
    > > Has it been passed through html verification?

    >
    > The web page uses XHTML formatting in the tables; it works fine with
    > Firefox 0.9.3 and 1.0PR, IE 6, and Konqueror 3.3,
    > and Mozilla 1.7. I don't have Netscape installed anywhere.
    > The page passed a "tidy" test on in Quanta Plus, my web editor.


    On that page,
    http://www.coyotegulch.com/reviews/linux_compilers/
    my Netscape 3.04g has overprint,
    my IE V6.0 has no overprint.

    --
    pete
     
    pete, Sep 19, 2004
    #4
  5. Scott Robert Ladd

    Jack Klein Guest

    On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 21:05:25 GMT, CBFalconer <>
    wrote in comp.lang.c:

    > Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
    > >
    > > I've posted a comparison of recent GCC versions (3.3, 3.4, and
    > > the coming 4.0) with Intel C++ 8.1, including several benchmarks
    > > and "state-of-the-product" reviews. You can find the article at:
    > >
    > > http://www.coyotegulch.com/reviews/linux_compilers/
    > >
    > > The above article replaces an older article I published in late
    > > 2002. This new comparison marks what I hope will be an ongoing
    > > series that tracks the quality of Linux compilers.

    >
    > FYI the above produces peculiar results, like an overprint, when
    > received here with Netscape 4.75 under W98. Has it been passed
    > through html verification?


    If someone told me that a web page of mine did not render properly
    under Netscape 4.75, I would ask them why they are using that creaky
    antique. Mozilla 1.72, Mozilla Firefox and Netscape 7.2 are free. I
    tested the page in two up-to-date browsers, Firefox and Opera.

    So why are you using that creaky antique?

    --
    Jack Klein
    Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
    FAQs for
    comp.lang.c http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
    comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c -faq-lite/
    alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
    http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~ajo/docs/FAQ-acllc.html
     
    Jack Klein, Sep 19, 2004
    #5
  6. Scott Robert Ladd

    CBFalconer Guest

    Jack Klein wrote:
    > CBFalconer <> wrote in comp.lang.c:
    >

    .... snip ...
    >>
    >> FYI the above produces peculiar results, like an overprint, when
    >> received here with Netscape 4.75 under W98. Has it been passed
    >> through html verification?

    >
    > If someone told me that a web page of mine did not render properly
    > under Netscape 4.75, I would ask them why they are using that creaky
    > antique. Mozilla 1.72, Mozilla Firefox and Netscape 7.2 are free.
    > I tested the page in two up-to-date browsers, Firefox and Opera.
    >
    > So why are you using that creaky antique?


    For similar reasons to why I am running it on a 486/80. My
    primary use is as a newsreader, and every time I consider
    upgrading I hear about one more reason that Mozilla/Firefox/NS7.2
    would create a problem for me. Besides, it is quite young, just
    barely old enough to go to kindergarten. My cars are all older
    too, I have a '63 Honda motorcycle in the garage, and I won't even
    mention my bicycle.

    --
    "This is a wonderful answer. It's off-topic, it's incorrect,
    and it doesn't answer the question." -- Richard Heathfield

    "I support the Red Sox and any team that beats the Yankees"
     
    CBFalconer, Sep 19, 2004
    #6
  7. Scott Robert Ladd

    pete Guest

    [ot]Re: Comparing Linux C and C++ Compilers: Benchmarks and Analysis

    CBFalconer wrote:
    >
    > Jack Klein wrote:
    > > CBFalconer <> wrote in comp.lang.c:
    > >

    > ... snip ...
    > >>
    > >> FYI the above produces peculiar results, like an overprint, when
    > >> received here with Netscape 4.75 under W98. Has it been passed
    > >> through html verification?

    > >
    > > If someone told me that a web page of mine did not render properly
    > > under Netscape 4.75, I would ask them why they are using that creaky
    > > antique. Mozilla 1.72, Mozilla Firefox and Netscape 7.2 are free.
    > > I tested the page in two up-to-date browsers, Firefox and Opera.
    > >
    > > So why are you using that creaky antique?

    >
    > For similar reasons to why I am running it on a 486/80. My
    > primary use is as a newsreader, and every time I consider
    > upgrading I hear about one more reason that Mozilla/Firefox/NS7.2


    If you want to get the newest viruses and worms,
    then you need the newest software.

    --
    pete
     
    pete, Sep 19, 2004
    #7
  8. Scott Robert Ladd

    Minti Guest

    "Scott Robert Ladd" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > Hello,
    >
    > I've posted a comparison of recent GCC versions (3.3, 3.4, and the
    > coming 4.0) with Intel C++ 8.1, including several benchmarks and
    > "state-of-the-product" reviews. You can find the article at:
    >
    > http://www.coyotegulch.com/reviews/linux_compilers/
    >
    > The above article replaces an older article I published in late 2002. This
    > new comparison marks what I hope will be an ongoing series that tracks the
    > quality of Linux compilers.
    >
    > ..Scott
    >
    >


    I just hope you forgot to post this on your bathroom tiles.




    --
    ISA
     
    Minti, Sep 19, 2004
    #8
  9. Scott Robert Ladd

    Rajeev Guest

    Scott Robert Ladd <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > Hello,
    >
    > I've posted a comparison of recent GCC versions (3.3, 3.4, and the
    > coming 4.0) with Intel C++ 8.1, including several benchmarks and
    > "state-of-the-product" reviews. You can find the article at:
    >
    > http://www.coyotegulch.com/reviews/linux_compilers/
    >
    > The above article replaces an older article I published in late 2002. This
    > new comparison marks what I hope will be an ongoing series that tracks the
    > quality of Linux compilers.
    >
    > ..Scott


    Scott,

    Terrific work ! I've been wishing to find exactly this.

    I'm looking for discussion groups, mailing lists, etc where folks discuss
    experiences in achieving optimizations. Thanks for your suggestions, on-line
    or off-

    Regards,
    -rajeev-
     
    Rajeev, Sep 20, 2004
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Comparing compilers

    , Dec 5, 2005, in forum: VHDL
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    731
    Mike Treseler
    Dec 6, 2005
  2. Scott Robert Ladd
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    427
    Scott Robert Ladd
    Sep 18, 2004
  3. geletine

    commercial c compilers vs free c compilers

    geletine, Jul 2, 2006, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    33
    Views:
    1,364
  4. ssubbarayan
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    2,423
    Dave Hansen
    Nov 3, 2009
  5. Ruby Baby
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    265
    Josef 'Jupp' SCHUGT
    Feb 20, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page