Performance comparison, ULE vs 4BSD and AMD64 vs i386

Brooks Davis brooks at
Wed Feb 25 14:54:26 PST 2004

On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 10:54:52AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 10:45:14AM -0800, Brooks Davis wrote:
> > The other big thing with gcc for amd64 is that we're still more in
> > the "run correctly" then the the "run fast" stage in terms of the
> > development cycle.  With a compiler, "produces fast/correct code" beats
> > "run fast" any day.  The code generator has been widly used for less
> > then a year.  Compared to the life history of the i386 code generator
> > that's pretty short and the user base is still small relative to the
> > installed base of i386 machines.  Even if generating amd64 code is
> > easier then generating i386 code, it's probably still a bit early to
> > expect the compiler to do it quickly.
> Not true -- AMD has spent more effort making GCC 3.3 (well the 3.3
> hammer_branch) generate faster code than anyone has for any other
> architecture to date.

I did not intend to suggest that gcc generates slow code.  I intended
to point out that it's still early to expect that it will generate that
code exceptionally quickly.

-- Brooks

Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE.
PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529  9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :

More information about the freebsd-amd64 mailing list