From kde-solaris  Sat Nov 06 03:00:36 2004
From: Stefan Teleman <steleman () nyc ! rr ! com>
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2004 03:00:36 +0000
To: kde-solaris
Subject: Re: [kde-solaris] Re: fibonacci
Message-Id: <200411052200.36337.steleman () nyc ! rr ! com>
X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-solaris&m=109971057811909

[steleman@obiwan][~/programming/fibonacci][11/05/2004 22:01:54][196]>> 
/usr/local/bin/gcc -m32 -mtune=v9 -O3 fibonacci.c -o 
fibonacci.gcc342.v9
[steleman@obiwan][~/programming/fibonacci][11/05/2004 22:04:28][197]>>  
./fibonacci.gcc342.v9 36
./fibonacci.gcc342.v9: calculated 10 fibonacci(36) in 19.000000 
seconds
[steleman@obiwan][~/programming/fibonacci][11/05/2004 22:05:02][198]>> 
./fibonacci.gcc342.v9 36
./fibonacci.gcc342.v9: calculated 10 fibonacci(36) in 19.000000 
seconds
[steleman@obiwan][~/programming/fibonacci][11/05/2004 22:07:36][199]>> 
./fibonacci.gcc342.v9 36
./fibonacci.gcc342.v9: calculated 10 fibonacci(36) in 19.000000 
seconds
[steleman@obiwan][~/programming/fibonacci][11/05/2004 22:07:58][200]>> 

It's actually consistently (3 times in a row) significantly worse.

--Stefan

------

On Friday 05 November 2004 21:58, Sunil wrote:
> the same code and same compile arguments, I get around
> 24% boost with gcc with -mtune=v9 instead of -mv8plus.
> it is with gcc 3.3.4, gcc3.4.2 probably should do
> better than that in bridging the gap. Can you please
> post gcc-3.4.2 result with -mtune=v9?
>
> And I agree that it will still not be enough to
> account for all of the difference in this benchmark.
>
> Thanks,
> Sunil

-- 
Stefan Teleman          'Nobody Expects the Spanish Inquisition'
steleman@nyc.rr.com                          -Monty Python

___________________________________________________
This message is from the kde-solaris mailing list.
Account management:  https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-solaris.
Archives: http://lists.kde.org/.
More info: http://www.kde.org/faq.html.