Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 20:40:57 +0200 (EET) From: Narvi <narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee> To: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@online.fr> Cc: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>, Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <grog@FreeBSD.ORG>, <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter Message-ID: <20030120203345.W43637-100000@haldjas.folklore.ee> In-Reply-To: <20030105192556.GA526@papagena.rockefeller.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[I understand its a bit late to answer - sorry about that] On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Rahul Siddharthan wrote: > Perhaps Intel produces better "straight" code than gcc -- not > surprising if it's their chip -- but gcc actually does better > optimization, and therefore catches up on more complex code? > icc does optimisations like automaticly vectorising code to make use of teh SSE2 regsiters for floating point. Its well possible that it over-optimisticly converts code for which this is in fact a pessimisation to use SSE2. IIRC the benchmark used the same compiler flags for all programs, and you can always run into pessimistaions with that with sufficently aggressive options. This is not an icc specific pitfall either. > - Rahul > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030120203345.W43637-100000>