From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3E158C11-6ABE-452F-9400-BFA877CEE85D@9srv.net> References: <3E158C11-6ABE-452F-9400-BFA877CEE85D@9srv.net> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 13:17:05 +1100 Message-ID: From: Bruce Ellis To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdc8f5a72e1680505e56d66 Subject: Re: [9fans] kencc benchmark vs gcc Topicbox-Message-UUID: 1f3f37ce-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 --047d7bdc8f5a72e1680505e56d66 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Then again if I'm writing a multi-threaded program then go blows gcc out of the water. brucee On 18/10/2014 8:18 AM, "Anthony Sorace" wrote: > There have been many over the years (I think the original papers present > something), but I've not seen anything current enough to be useful. The > very short version: gcc almost always produces faster executables from the > same code. > > > --047d7bdc8f5a72e1680505e56d66 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Then again if I'm writing a multi-threaded program then = go blows gcc out of the water.

brucee

On 18/10/2014 8:18 AM, "Anthony Sorace"= ; <a@9srv.net> wrote:
There have been many over the yea= rs (I think the original papers present something), but I've not seen a= nything current enough to be useful. The very short version: gcc almost alw= ays produces faster executables from the same code.


--047d7bdc8f5a72e1680505e56d66--