[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-solaris
Subject:    Re: [kde-solaris] Re: fibonacci
From:       Stefan Teleman <steleman () nyc ! rr ! com>
Date:       2004-11-06 3:00:36
Message-ID: 200411052200.36337.steleman () nyc ! rr ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

[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.
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]