Archives
Archives
| From: | David Holm <dholm@g.o> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-dev@g.o | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-dev] "Distro Day (Measuring the benefits of the Gentoo approach)" | ||
| Date: | Wed, 13 Aug 2003 14:26:05 | ||
| Message-Id: | 20030813162432.7decc94e.dholm@gentoo.org | ||
| In Reply to: | [gentoo-dev] "Distro Day (Measuring the benefits of the Gentoo approach)" by "Philippe Lafoucrière" |
||
| 1 | If they really wanted to test the speed why didn't they use more aggressive compiler flags? |
| 2 | |
| 3 | I think it should be investigated which packages could be compiled by icc since |
| 4 | intel are now providing it for free for non-commercial use. I did some tests with it and |
| 5 | whetstone (classic fpu benchmark from the 1970's) doubled in speed compared to gcc on a P4, and |
| 6 | it was about 75% faster on an Athlon-XP. Now float-point isn't everything but from my experience |
| 7 | icc generally produces better optimized code than gcc unless the application has been hand-tuned |
| 8 | (like mplayer). |
| 9 | I tried installing gentoo with CC=icc once but I had problems with many ebuilds so I dropped |
| 10 | that idea. At the moment extremely few ebuilds support icc. |
| 11 | |
| 12 | //David Holm |
| 13 | |
| 14 | On 13 Aug 2003 15:38:21 +0200 |
| 15 | Philippe Lafoucrière <lafou@×××××××.fr> wrote: |
| 16 | |
| 17 | > http://articles.linmagau.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=227&page=1http://articles.linmagau.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=227&page=1 |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| Re: [gentoo-dev] "Distro Day (Measuring the benefits of the Gentoo approach)" | "Philippe Lafoucrière" <lafou@×××××××.fr> |
| Re: [gentoo-dev] "Distro Day (Measuring the benefits of the Gentoo approach)" | Jon Portnoy <avenj@g.o> |