From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 13:10:09 -0500 From: "William K. Josephson" To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] GCC3.0 [Was; Webbrowser] Message-ID: <20030206181009.GA42953@mero.morphisms.net> References: <1d03b9df37f6a72c3d2d7dcaec3f3c9d@plan9.bell-labs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1d03b9df37f6a72c3d2d7dcaec3f3c9d@plan9.bell-labs.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Topicbox-Message-UUID: 520971dc-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 12:32:52PM -0500, David Presotto wrote: >themselves were not at all OS tests, they pretty much test the compiler >and malloc and nothing else. There's a little pipe stuff in there to implement >locks but they looked like pretty high level locks. Not to mention that the repeated comparisons with gcc get tiresome: gcc is really not as great as many proponents make it out to be, even on the ia32. I'm very glad to have it and use it regularly, but it is much slower than either 8c or the vendor compiler and generates substantially slower code than the vendor compiler, at least in my experience. It isn't uncommon to see Intel's compiler beat gcc by 30-40% and I haven't found any non-trivial examples where gcc beats the Microsoft or Intel compilers, although they may well exist. If someone has the time, money, and warm bodies to invest, great, otherwise I'll port a few assembly routines when it really matters and get on with my life. Premature obfusc^H^H^H^H^Hoptimization is the root of all evil.