Re: using linux instead of osf

Jim Nance (jlnance@avanticorp.com)
Wed, 27 Nov 1996 10:04:00 -0500 (EST)

> > the
> > performance improvement that DEC's cc gives over GCC is only about 2-3%, not
> > really enough to justify the extra hassle.
>
>
> how come DEC's cc does that bad? i thought it does schedule the
> instructions, and i also thought alpha was heavily reliant on the compiler
> scheduling the instructions.
>
> well, i hear gcc 2.8 will have a scheduler. can't wait to get my hands on
> that.

Its case dependent. I have seen cc generate code that worked better and
worse than gcc, but in general its better, though its not going to be twice
as fast or anything like that. The linker also has the ability
to use feedback files via om or cord, which can give another 5-15% runtime
improvement. I would love to see this ability in gcc, but the number
of people who know enough about compilers to implement that is quite
small (so where is Eric Youngdale these days).

Jim

--
To unsubscribe: send e-mail to axp-list-request@redhat.com with
'unsubscribe' as the subject.  Do not send it to axp-list@redhat.com



Feedback | Store | News | Support | Product Errata | About Us | Linux Info | Search | JumpWords
No Frames | Show Frames

Copyright © 1995-1997 Red Hat Software. Legal notices