From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] sparc port, number crunching In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 11 Oct 2005 07:16:44 MDT." <434BBB3C.6030205@lanl.gov> References: <200510101633.aa68635@salmon.maths.tcd.ie> <200510110919.aa19893@salmon.maths.tcd.ie> <434BBB3C.6030205@lanl.gov> Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:45:23 +0100 From: John Stalker Message-ID: <200510111645.aa48099@salmon.maths.tcd.ie> Topicbox-Message-UUID: 99b3398c-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 The original words were The SPARC compiler is also solid and fast, although we haven't used it for a few years, due to a lack of current hardware. We have seen it do much better than GCC with all the optimizations, but on average it is probably about the same. I suspect the comparison is with GCC rather than Sun Studio 8/9/10 because GCC is free (as in beer) rather than because it is the holy grail of compiler development. > John Stalker wrote: > > > On a related note, the plan9 sparc compiler was claimed to produce > > code comparable in speed to GCC. Does anyone know how it compares > > to Sun's compiler? > > > well, there's a blast from the past: > > "gcc code output quality used as 'good' in compiler comparison" :-) > > ron -- John Stalker University of Dublin, Trinity College School of Mathematics