Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 10:54:52 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> To: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> Cc: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Performance comparison, ULE vs 4BSD and AMD64 vs i386 Message-ID: <20040225185452.GH7567@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <20040225184512.GA8620@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu> References: <1077658664.92943.15.camel@.rochester.rr.com> <20040225110754.hcogcccokg84k44k@www.sweetdreamsracing.biz> <20040225183234.GG7567@dragon.nuxi.com> <20040225184512.GA8620@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 10:45:14AM -0800, Brooks Davis wrote: > The other big thing with gcc for amd64 is that we're still more in > the "run correctly" then the the "run fast" stage in terms of the > development cycle. With a compiler, "produces fast/correct code" beats > "run fast" any day. The code generator has been widly used for less > then a year. Compared to the life history of the i386 code generator > that's pretty short and the user base is still small relative to the > installed base of i386 machines. Even if generating amd64 code is > easier then generating i386 code, it's probably still a bit early to > expect the compiler to do it quickly. Not true -- AMD has spent more effort making GCC 3.3 (well the 3.3 hammer_branch) generate faster code than anyone has for any other architecture to date. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040225185452.GH7567>