From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Mar 6 9:57:38 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from bdr-xcon.matchlogic.com (mail.matchlogic.com [205.216.147.127]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D45D537B719 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 09:57:35 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from crandall@matchlogic.com) Received: by mail.matchlogic.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 10:56:50 -0700 Message-ID: <5FE9B713CCCDD311A03400508B8B30130828E87D@bdr-xcln.is.matchlogic.com> From: Charles Randall To: 'Matt Dillon' , Andrew Gallatin Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: Machines are getting too damn fast Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 10:56:49 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG From: Matt Dillon [mailto:dillon@earth.backplane.com] > My understanding is that Intel focused on FP performance in the P4, > and that it is very, very good at it. I dunno how to test it though. > > GCC generally does not produce very good code, but I would expect that > it would get reasonably close in regards to FP because Intel's FP > instruction set is a good fit with it. Which begs the question I've tried to ask a number of times in different forums. Who's working on P4 optimizations and code generation for the P4? Sure, i386 code will run but the benchmarks seem to indicate that peak performance is heavily dependent on a good optimizing compiler. A query to the gcc mailing list returned no responses. Charles To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message