From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29256 invoked by uid 1002); 13 Aug 2003 14:28:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 18215 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2003 14:28:55 -0000 From: Philippe =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lafoucri=E8re?= Reply-To: lafou@wanadoo.fr To: David Holm Cc: Gentoo-dev In-Reply-To: <20030813162432.7decc94e.dholm@gentoo.org> References: <1060781901.7508.17.camel@biproc> <20030813162432.7decc94e.dholm@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: InFuzzion Message-Id: <1060784933.7506.39.camel@biproc> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.3 Date: 13 Aug 2003 16:28:53 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] "Distro Day (Measuring the benefits of the Gentoo approach)" X-Archives-Salt: 74995082-fedd-4eaf-aefd-d7a1b8c02362 X-Archives-Hash: 6d5bb78cb6883c065b76e4a86afb231f On Wed, 2003-08-13 at 16:24, David Holm wrote: > If they really wanted to test the speed why didn't they use more aggressive compiler flags? > > I think it should be investigated which packages could be compiled by icc since > intel are now providing it for free for non-commercial use. I did some tests with it and > whetstone (classic fpu benchmark from the 1970's) doubled in speed compared to gcc on a P4, and > it was about 75% faster on an Athlon-XP. Now float-point isn't everything but from my experience > icc generally produces better optimized code than gcc unless the application has been hand-tuned > (like mplayer). > I tried installing gentoo with CC=icc once but I had problems with many ebuilds so I dropped > that idea. At the moment extremely few ebuilds support icc. Just realized that they are using march=pentium3, whereas celeron is a pentium2 (cf /etc/make.conf !). the use of march can really slow down the machine I think... -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list