From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 11 15:29:48 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BC67106566B for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2009 15:29:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from giffunip@tutopia.com) Received: from web32708.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web32708.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.207.252]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 05C628FC0A for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2009 15:29:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from giffunip@tutopia.com) Received: (qmail 50068 invoked by uid 60001); 11 Jan 2009 15:23:06 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: jiizk7gVM1lbo0V0uLqmaW8NOuh2rzgfD10oJgsHbP3mEPeL2RjwFky5DiRNBzNh5yLe9o7r4FsCUHEbYq4nICehl4VbyJhiW4ZzuzRewbe6XkShrLvZpyEnqalvRL1azO_Xq6FvE76wj8WTnR8iXnSR2F2Z2BBh6tsQaBA9hB_2bLG03eqTfiAGxNmC Received: from [190.157.124.207] by web32708.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 11 Jan 2009 07:23:06 PST X-RocketYMMF: giffunip X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/1155.45 YahooMailWebService/0.7.260.1 References: <61484.71762.qm@web32708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20090111044448.GC5661@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <4969CC6D.6030707@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 07:23:06 -0800 (PST) From: "Pedro F. Giffuni" To: "O. Hartmann" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: <458984.49823.qm@web32708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 16:14:43 +0000 Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it become standard compiler?) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 15:29:48 -0000 =0A=0A----- Original Message ----=0A...=0A> =0A> Well, initially my questio= n was triggered by reading a performance duell=0A> between FreeBSD 7/8, mos= t recent U(n)buntu and OpenSolaris and someone=0A> stated the 3% performanc= e gain of U(n)buntu over FreeBSD was due to the=0A> gcc4.3 compiler, which = generates more efficient code. 3% mean=0A> performance gain could mean (as = I made this experience) a better=0A> advantage in some special cases and ha= ving in mind numerical modelling=0A> running on my lab's FreeBSd box (yet, = but I think this is about to=0A> change and move towards a RH Linux system = due to the better support of=0A> HPC and, a pitty, our admins build the clu= ster with RH and not FBSD).=0A> =0A=0AEven when it can be measured, perform= ance can be very subjective, performance=0Adepends on many factors: the thr= eading libraries, the options used to build the =0Apackages, the filesystem= s and maybe even the position of the moon ;-). Most of =0Amy numerical pack= ages don't depend on the system compiler but rather depend on =0Awhat the= =A0ports system=A0uses=A0as the=A0Fortran compiler so you will be glad to k= now =0Athat we are indeed using gcc4.3 since last week.=0A=0A> =0A> Well, a= s I understand the discussion about the binutils (there seems to=0A> exist = a very similar problemacy), did RH already cut off the leashes by=0A> intro= ducing their elftools? Correct me, if I'm wrong.=0A> =0A=0AWe already have = our own libelf and related utilities however the tough part seems =0Ato be = having a good assembler that supports all our platforms. I understand the R= H =0Aelftools have that but I don't know their current state.=A0Also the=A0= maintainers of these =0Autilities are known to be rather unfriendly with ot= her camps.=0A=0APedro.=0A=0A=0A