Performance comparison, ULE vs 4BSD and AMD64 vs i386
brooks at one-eyed-alien.net
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.
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
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-amd64/attachments/20040225/3903d7aa/attachment.bin
More information about the freebsd-amd64