Re: (re)compiling debian packages with ccc

["Phil Mendelsohn" <phil@rephil.org>]

Bas Zoetekouw writes: 

> For example, take a look at these results from SCIbench
> (http://math.nist.gov/scimark2), generated on an quadruple-proc EV67
> machine (running Tru64 Unix btw, not Linux): 
>
> Compaq C compiler, V6.4-014 
> CFLAGS = -arch ev67 -fast -O4
> | Composite Score:          195.47
> | FFT             Mflops:   207.66    (N=1024)
> | SOR             Mflops:   235.00    (100 x 100)
> | MonteCarlo:     Mflops:    53.33
> | Sparse matmult  Mflops:   177.93    (N=1000, nz=5000)
> | LU              Mflops:   303.42    (M=100, N=100) 
>
> GNU C compiler, V3.2.1
> CFLAGS = -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -ffast-math -mcpu=ev67
> | Composite Score:          137.18
> | FFT             Mflops:   188.23    (N=1024)
> | SOR             Mflops:   167.08    (100 x 100)
> | MonteCarlo:     Mflops:    49.71
> | Sparse matmult  Mflops:   163.85    (N=1000, nz=5000)
> | LU              Mflops:   117.03    (M=100, N=100)

I don't know -- really the only thing where the ccc code really shines is 
the LU factorization.  Composite scores are only about 30% better for ccc.  
I think this is one of those discussion with sufficiently many vagaries to 
get a different opinion from almost every participant. 

I like ccc; the back end is really some nifty engineering (GEM is involved 
on this, right?), but that is typical of Alpha things that started at DEC.
That was a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away... 

Cheers,
Phil Mendelsohn
--
"To misattribute a quote is unforgivable." -- Anonymous