In article <ioifgvgf913u7pf2p0q9fvt1pde42r8crg[at]4ax.com>,
Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:

> Trevor Zion Bauknight wrote in
> <trevzb-B84778.16374601072003[at]news.fu-berlin.de>:
>
> >In article <olk3gv0fkhb4835den4g8cl4k0b6295udg[at]4ax.com>,
> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >Anyway, I assume the the GNU C compiler for x86 is also optimized for
> >> >the Pentium 4.
> >> >
> >> >(I'm not sure whether true 64 bit G5 code could even run under a 32 bit
> >> >Darwin kernel. Steve?)
> >>
> >> Look at the backpedaling. Word must be leaking out to these fools
> >> that Apple in fact did make optimizations for the G5. By the way it's
> >> admitted by everyone by now that this compiler was most certainly not
> >> optimized for Intel. So stop with the intelligence-insulting
> >> doublethink.
> >
> >Are you suggesting that GCC has seen no P4 optimization since the
> >introduction of that chip?
> >
> >The G5 has only been out for a short time. Apple has modified GCC to
> >take advantage of its new features, but has hardly spent a great deal of
>
> They spent a year on it. Plenty of time by any standard of reckoning.
> Face it, this is more benchmarketing, only lemmings still fall for
> this used car salesman garbage.

If Apple spent a year, how long do you suppose Intel spent on GCC
optimizations?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

In article <hdcjgv8as7100qonhthf533jj70js7t96f[at]4ax.com>,
Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote in <alangbaker-0DB65E.23435606072003[at]news.telus.net>:
>
> >In article <ioifgvgf913u7pf2p0q9fvt1pde42r8crg[at]4ax.com>,
> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Trevor Zion Bauknight wrote in
> >> <trevzb-B84778.16374601072003[at]news.fu-berlin.de>:
> >>
> >> >In article <olk3gv0fkhb4835den4g8cl4k0b6295udg[at]4ax.com>,
> >> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >Anyway, I assume the the GNU C compiler for x86 is also optimized for
> >> >> >the Pentium 4.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >(I'm not sure whether true 64 bit G5 code could even run under a 32 bit
> >> >> >Darwin kernel. Steve?)
> >> >>
> >> >> Look at the backpedaling. Word must be leaking out to these fools
> >> >> that Apple in fact did make optimizations for the G5. By the way it's
> >> >> admitted by everyone by now that this compiler was most certainly not
> >> >> optimized for Intel. So stop with the intelligence-insulting
> >> >> doublethink.
> >> >
> >> >Are you suggesting that GCC has seen no P4 optimization since the
> >> >introduction of that chip?
> >> >
> >> >The G5 has only been out for a short time. Apple has modified GCC to
> >> >take advantage of its new features, but has hardly spent a great deal of
> >>
> >> They spent a year on it. Plenty of time by any standard of reckoning.
> >> Face it, this is more benchmarketing, only lemmings still fall for
> >> this used car salesman garbage.
> >
> >If Apple spent a year, how long do you suppose Intel spent on GCC
> >optimizations?
>
> Since Intel recommends its own compiler instead of GCC, I suspect
> Apple has the leg up here. Come on, stop being such a shill. You
> know they rigged the test to suppress PC performance, the truth is in
> the SPEC benchmarks.

Of course they rigged the test. According to the register gcc is the
only compiler that can be used for a g5. Unless the register is wrong
all the people that have been saying gcc was used to make it a fair
crossplatform test are mistaken

"As previously reported, coding for the G5 requires programmers adopt
the GCC 3.3 compiler. GCC 3.3 supports flags which allow developers to
generate 970-only code, and to access 64-bit datapaths.

As we say, IBM describes the bridge as temporary: "These resources are
not to be considered a permanent part of the PowerPC architecture," it
sternly warns.

"

In article <hdcjgv8as7100qonhthf533jj70js7t96f[at]4ax.com>,
Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote in <alangbaker-0DB65E.23435606072003[at]news.telus.net>:
>
> >In article <ioifgvgf913u7pf2p0q9fvt1pde42r8crg[at]4ax.com>,
> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Trevor Zion Bauknight wrote in
> >> <trevzb-B84778.16374601072003[at]news.fu-berlin.de>:
> >>
> >> >In article <olk3gv0fkhb4835den4g8cl4k0b6295udg[at]4ax.com>,
> >> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >Anyway, I assume the the GNU C compiler for x86 is also optimized for
> >> >> >the Pentium 4.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >(I'm not sure whether true 64 bit G5 code could even run under a 32 bit
> >> >> >Darwin kernel. Steve?)
> >> >>
> >> >> Look at the backpedaling. Word must be leaking out to these fools
> >> >> that Apple in fact did make optimizations for the G5. By the way it's
> >> >> admitted by everyone by now that this compiler was most certainly not
> >> >> optimized for Intel. So stop with the intelligence-insulting
> >> >> doublethink.
> >> >
> >> >Are you suggesting that GCC has seen no P4 optimization since the
> >> >introduction of that chip?
> >> >
> >> >The G5 has only been out for a short time. Apple has modified GCC to
> >> >take advantage of its new features, but has hardly spent a great deal of
> >>
> >> They spent a year on it. Plenty of time by any standard of reckoning.
> >> Face it, this is more benchmarketing, only lemmings still fall for
> >> this used car salesman garbage.
> >
> >If Apple spent a year, how long do you suppose Intel spent on GCC
> >optimizations?
>
> Since Intel recommends its own compiler instead of GCC, I suspect
> Apple has the leg up here. Come on, stop being such a shill. You
> know they rigged the test to suppress PC performance, the truth is in
> the SPEC benchmarks.

LOL. So you're saying because Intel has their own compiler, then they
haven't made any optimizations to gcc? Is that accurate?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

In article <no-C0629A.13271207072003[at]newssvr15-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
no <no[at]no.com> wrote:

> In article <hdcjgv8as7100qonhthf533jj70js7t96f[at]4ax.com>,
> Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
>
> > Alan Baker wrote in <alangbaker-0DB65E.23435606072003[at]news.telus.net>:
> >
> > >In article <ioifgvgf913u7pf2p0q9fvt1pde42r8crg[at]4ax.com>,
> > > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Trevor Zion Bauknight wrote in
> > >> <trevzb-B84778.16374601072003[at]news.fu-berlin.de>:
> > >>
> > >> >In article <olk3gv0fkhb4835den4g8cl4k0b6295udg[at]4ax.com>,
> > >> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> >Anyway, I assume the the GNU C compiler for x86 is also optimized
> > >> >> >for
> > >> >> >the Pentium 4.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >(I'm not sure whether true 64 bit G5 code could even run under a 32
> > >> >> >bit
> > >> >> >Darwin kernel. Steve?)
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Look at the backpedaling. Word must be leaking out to these fools
> > >> >> that Apple in fact did make optimizations for the G5. By the way
> > >> >> it's
> > >> >> admitted by everyone by now that this compiler was most certainly not
> > >> >> optimized for Intel. So stop with the intelligence-insulting
> > >> >> doublethink.
> > >> >
> > >> >Are you suggesting that GCC has seen no P4 optimization since the
> > >> >introduction of that chip?
> > >> >
> > >> >The G5 has only been out for a short time. Apple has modified GCC to
> > >> >take advantage of its new features, but has hardly spent a great deal
> > >> >of
> > >>
> > >> They spent a year on it. Plenty of time by any standard of reckoning.
> > >> Face it, this is more benchmarketing, only lemmings still fall for
> > >> this used car salesman garbage.
> > >
> > >If Apple spent a year, how long do you suppose Intel spent on GCC
> > >optimizations?
> >
> > Since Intel recommends its own compiler instead of GCC, I suspect
> > Apple has the leg up here. Come on, stop being such a shill. You
> > know they rigged the test to suppress PC performance, the truth is in
> > the SPEC benchmarks.
>
> Of course they rigged the test. According to the register gcc is the
> only compiler that can be used for a g5. Unless the register is wrong
> all the people that have been saying gcc was used to make it a fair
> crossplatform test are mistaken
>
> "As previously reported, coding for the G5 requires programmers adopt
> the GCC 3.3 compiler. GCC 3.3 supports flags which allow developers to
> generate 970-only code, and to access 64-bit datapaths.
>
> As we say, IBM describes the bridge as temporary: "These resources are
> not to be considered a permanent part of the PowerPC architecture," it
> sternly warns.
>
> "

As has been pointed out, your analysis of the situation is incorrect. <g>

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Alan Baker wrote in <alangbaker-CADEB2.22334707072003[at]news.telus.net>:

>In article <hdcjgv8as7100qonhthf533jj70js7t96f[at]4ax.com>,
> Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
>
>> Alan Baker wrote in <alangbaker-0DB65E.23435606072003[at]news.telus.net>:
>>
>> >In article <ioifgvgf913u7pf2p0q9fvt1pde42r8crg[at]4ax.com>,
>> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Trevor Zion Bauknight wrote in
>> >> <trevzb-B84778.16374601072003[at]news.fu-berlin.de>:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <olk3gv0fkhb4835den4g8cl4k0b6295udg[at]4ax.com>,
>> >> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> >Anyway, I assume the the GNU C compiler for x86 is also optimized for
>> >> >> >the Pentium 4.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >(I'm not sure whether true 64 bit G5 code could even run under a 32 bit
>> >> >> >Darwin kernel. Steve?)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Look at the backpedaling. Word must be leaking out to these fools
>> >> >> that Apple in fact did make optimizations for the G5. By the way it's
>> >> >> admitted by everyone by now that this compiler was most certainly not
>> >> >> optimized for Intel. So stop with the intelligence-insulting
>> >> >> doublethink.
>> >> >
>> >> >Are you suggesting that GCC has seen no P4 optimization since the
>> >> >introduction of that chip?
>> >> >
>> >> >The G5 has only been out for a short time. Apple has modified GCC to
>> >> >take advantage of its new features, but has hardly spent a great deal of
>> >>
>> >> They spent a year on it. Plenty of time by any standard of reckoning.
>> >> Face it, this is more benchmarketing, only lemmings still fall for
>> >> this used car salesman garbage.
>> >
>> >If Apple spent a year, how long do you suppose Intel spent on GCC
>> >optimizations?
>>
>> Since Intel recommends its own compiler instead of GCC, I suspect
>> Apple has the leg up here. Come on, stop being such a shill. You
>> know they rigged the test to suppress PC performance, the truth is in
>> the SPEC benchmarks.
>
>LOL. So you're saying because Intel has their own compiler, then they
>haven't made any optimizations to gcc? Is that accurate?

No, you're having reading problems again. Almost nothing you conclude
is really accurate, anyway. I'm beginning to wonder if I'm responding
to a Turing script.

In article <9a6mgv4f7tjspvl6a214is970rjdel6s96[at]4ax.com>,
Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote in <alangbaker-00ED9D.11203808072003[at]news.telus.net>:
>
> >In article <q31mgv0knsp5l0okcksh9sukk4dd311o8k[at]4ax.com>,
> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Alan Baker wrote in <alangbaker-CADEB2.22334707072003[at]news.telus.net>:
> >>
> >> >In article <hdcjgv8as7100qonhthf533jj70js7t96f[at]4ax.com>,
> >> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Alan Baker wrote in <alangbaker-0DB65E.23435606072003[at]news.telus.net>:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <ioifgvgf913u7pf2p0q9fvt1pde42r8crg[at]4ax.com>,
> >> >> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Trevor Zion Bauknight wrote in
> >> >> >> <trevzb-B84778.16374601072003[at]news.fu-berlin.de>:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >In article <olk3gv0fkhb4835den4g8cl4k0b6295udg[at]4ax.com>,
> >> >> >> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >Anyway, I assume the the GNU C compiler for x86 is also
> >> >> >> >> >optimized
> >> >> >> >> >for
> >> >> >> >> >the Pentium 4.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >(I'm not sure whether true 64 bit G5 code could even run under a
> >> >> >> >> >32
> >> >> >> >> >bit
> >> >> >> >> >Darwin kernel. Steve?)
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Look at the backpedaling. Word must be leaking out to these
> >> >> >> >> fools
> >> >> >> >> that Apple in fact did make optimizations for the G5. By the way
> >> >> >> >> it's
> >> >> >> >> admitted by everyone by now that this compiler was most certainly
> >> >> >> >> not
> >> >> >> >> optimized for Intel. So stop with the intelligence-insulting
> >> >> >> >> doublethink.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Are you suggesting that GCC has seen no P4 optimization since the
> >> >> >> >introduction of that chip?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >The G5 has only been out for a short time. Apple has modified GCC
> >> >> >> >to
> >> >> >> >take advantage of its new features, but has hardly spent a great
> >> >> >> >deal
> >> >> >> >of
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> They spent a year on it. Plenty of time by any standard of
> >> >> >> reckoning.
> >> >> >> Face it, this is more benchmarketing, only lemmings still fall for
> >> >> >> this used car salesman garbage.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >If Apple spent a year, how long do you suppose Intel spent on GCC
> >> >> >optimizations?
> >> >>
> >> >> Since Intel recommends its own compiler instead of GCC, I suspect
> >> >> Apple has the leg up here. Come on, stop being such a shill. You
> >> >> know they rigged the test to suppress PC performance, the truth is in
> >> >> the SPEC benchmarks.
> >> >
> >> >LOL. So you're saying because Intel has their own compiler, then they
> >> >haven't made any optimizations to gcc? Is that accurate?
> >>
> >> No, you're having reading problems again. Almost nothing you conclude
> >> is really accurate, anyway. I'm beginning to wonder if I'm responding
> >> to a Turing script.
> >
> >So what are you saying?
> >
> >When I suggested that Intel had had longer to work on gcc optimizations
> >for the P4 than Apple has had for the G5 you responded in a way that
> >implied that they hadn't done so?
>
> I'm saying Apple should have used Intel's compiler and conducted an
> honest performance test. That's a concept that seems to escape you.

Has Intel optimized gcc for the P4 or not? Answer the question.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Alan Baker wrote in <alangbaker-00ED9D.11203808072003[at]news.telus.net>:

>In article <q31mgv0knsp5l0okcksh9sukk4dd311o8k[at]4ax.com>,
> Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
>
>> Alan Baker wrote in <alangbaker-CADEB2.22334707072003[at]news.telus.net>:
>>
>> >In article <hdcjgv8as7100qonhthf533jj70js7t96f[at]4ax.com>,
>> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Alan Baker wrote in <alangbaker-0DB65E.23435606072003[at]news.telus.net>:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <ioifgvgf913u7pf2p0q9fvt1pde42r8crg[at]4ax.com>,
>> >> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Trevor Zion Bauknight wrote in
>> >> >> <trevzb-B84778.16374601072003[at]news.fu-berlin.de>:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >In article <olk3gv0fkhb4835den4g8cl4k0b6295udg[at]4ax.com>,
>> >> >> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Anyway, I assume the the GNU C compiler for x86 is also optimized
>> >> >> >> >for
>> >> >> >> >the Pentium 4.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >(I'm not sure whether true 64 bit G5 code could even run under a 32
>> >> >> >> >bit
>> >> >> >> >Darwin kernel. Steve?)
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Look at the backpedaling. Word must be leaking out to these fools
>> >> >> >> that Apple in fact did make optimizations for the G5. By the way
>> >> >> >> it's
>> >> >> >> admitted by everyone by now that this compiler was most certainly
>> >> >> >> not
>> >> >> >> optimized for Intel. So stop with the intelligence-insulting
>> >> >> >> doublethink.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Are you suggesting that GCC has seen no P4 optimization since the
>> >> >> >introduction of that chip?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >The G5 has only been out for a short time. Apple has modified GCC to
>> >> >> >take advantage of its new features, but has hardly spent a great deal
>> >> >> >of
>> >> >>
>> >> >> They spent a year on it. Plenty of time by any standard of reckoning.
>> >> >> Face it, this is more benchmarketing, only lemmings still fall for
>> >> >> this used car salesman garbage.
>> >> >
>> >> >If Apple spent a year, how long do you suppose Intel spent on GCC
>> >> >optimizations?
>> >>
>> >> Since Intel recommends its own compiler instead of GCC, I suspect
>> >> Apple has the leg up here. Come on, stop being such a shill. You
>> >> know they rigged the test to suppress PC performance, the truth is in
>> >> the SPEC benchmarks.
>> >
>> >LOL. So you're saying because Intel has their own compiler, then they
>> >haven't made any optimizations to gcc? Is that accurate?
>>
>> No, you're having reading problems again. Almost nothing you conclude
>> is really accurate, anyway. I'm beginning to wonder if I'm responding
>> to a Turing script.
>
>So what are you saying?
>
>When I suggested that Intel had had longer to work on gcc optimizations
>for the P4 than Apple has had for the G5 you responded in a way that
>implied that they hadn't done so?

I'm saying Apple should have used Intel's compiler and conducted an
honest performance test. That's a concept that seems to escape you.

In article <alangbaker-00ED9D.11203808072003[at]news.telus.net>,
Alan Baker <alangbaker[at]telus.net> wrote:

> When I suggested that Intel had had longer to work on gcc optimizations
> for the P4 than Apple has had for the G5 you responded in a way that
> implied that they hadn't done so?

Why would Intel work on GCC? ICC is their compiler. Apple Gcc is
Apple's compiler. Apple works on AGCC, Intel works on ICC.

Just to point out that there really is no "Apple GCC", since GCC is
under GPL and all changes made by any party have to be given back to
GNU.

Arun Gupta <macgupta123[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
>Slides 21 and 22 of the presentation at
>http://www.spscicomp.org/ScicomP7/Presentations/Blainey-SciComp7_compiler_update.pdf
>
>show how IBM Visual Age compares against GCC 3.3 on Power4
>for the components of the Spec2000 Int and FP benchmarks.

Nice find! By carefully measuring the graphs I estimate that xlc -O5 would
score about 37% higher on int (although the missing results for crafty and
gcc are kind of odd), and 101% higher on fp than gcc -O3. Of course this
only applies to the Power4 and the PPC64 optimisations that made it into
GCC 3.3 which was just released in May.

-- Erick

In article <hdcjgv8as7100qonhthf533jj70js7t96f[at]4ax.com>,
Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote in <alangbaker-0DB65E.23435606072003[at]news.telus.net>:
>
> >In article <ioifgvgf913u7pf2p0q9fvt1pde42r8crg[at]4ax.com>,
> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Trevor Zion Bauknight wrote in
> >> <trevzb-B84778.16374601072003[at]news.fu-berlin.de>:
> >>
> >> >In article <olk3gv0fkhb4835den4g8cl4k0b6295udg[at]4ax.com>,
> >> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >Anyway, I assume the the GNU C compiler for x86 is also optimized for
> >> >> >the Pentium 4.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >(I'm not sure whether true 64 bit G5 code could even run under a 32 bit
> >> >> >Darwin kernel. Steve?)
> >> >>
> >> >> Look at the backpedaling. Word must be leaking out to these fools
> >> >> that Apple in fact did make optimizations for the G5. By the way it's
> >> >> admitted by everyone by now that this compiler was most certainly not
> >> >> optimized for Intel. So stop with the intelligence-insulting
> >> >> doublethink.
> >> >
> >> >Are you suggesting that GCC has seen no P4 optimization since the
> >> >introduction of that chip?
> >> >
> >> >The G5 has only been out for a short time. Apple has modified GCC to
> >> >take advantage of its new features, but has hardly spent a great deal of
> >>
> >> They spent a year on it. Plenty of time by any standard of reckoning.
> >> Face it, this is more benchmarketing, only lemmings still fall for
> >> this used car salesman garbage.
> >
> >If Apple spent a year, how long do you suppose Intel spent on GCC
> >optimizations?
>
> Since Intel recommends its own compiler instead of GCC, I suspect
> Apple has the leg up here. Come on, stop being such a shill. You
> know they rigged the test to suppress PC performance, the truth is in
> the SPEC benchmarks.

Unfortunatly that is not what the folks at Luxology said. PC performance
was helped, just not enough to beat the Mac.

--
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do while expecting that he will get nothing in return!"

Macintosh for productivity. Linux for servers. Palm/Visor for mobility. Windows to feed the Black Hole in your IT budget

Jim Polaski wrote in
<jpolaski-9DA29A.20484510072003[at]netnews.attbi.com>:

>In article <hdcjgv8as7100qonhthf533jj70js7t96f[at]4ax.com>,
> Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
>
>> Alan Baker wrote in <alangbaker-0DB65E.23435606072003[at]news.telus.net>:
>>
>> >In article <ioifgvgf913u7pf2p0q9fvt1pde42r8crg[at]4ax.com>,
>> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Trevor Zion Bauknight wrote in
>> >> <trevzb-B84778.16374601072003[at]news.fu-berlin.de>:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <olk3gv0fkhb4835den4g8cl4k0b6295udg[at]4ax.com>,
>> >> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> >Anyway, I assume the the GNU C compiler for x86 is also optimized for
>> >> >> >the Pentium 4.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >(I'm not sure whether true 64 bit G5 code could even run under a 32 bit
>> >> >> >Darwin kernel. Steve?)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Look at the backpedaling. Word must be leaking out to these fools
>> >> >> that Apple in fact did make optimizations for the G5. By the way it's
>> >> >> admitted by everyone by now that this compiler was most certainly not
>> >> >> optimized for Intel. So stop with the intelligence-insulting
>> >> >> doublethink.
>> >> >
>> >> >Are you suggesting that GCC has seen no P4 optimization since the
>> >> >introduction of that chip?
>> >> >
>> >> >The G5 has only been out for a short time. Apple has modified GCC to
>> >> >take advantage of its new features, but has hardly spent a great deal of
>> >>
>> >> They spent a year on it. Plenty of time by any standard of reckoning.
>> >> Face it, this is more benchmarketing, only lemmings still fall for
>> >> this used car salesman garbage.
>> >
>> >If Apple spent a year, how long do you suppose Intel spent on GCC
>> >optimizations?
>>
>> Since Intel recommends its own compiler instead of GCC, I suspect
>> Apple has the leg up here. Come on, stop being such a shill. You
>> know they rigged the test to suppress PC performance, the truth is in
>> the SPEC benchmarks.
>
>Unfortunatly that is not what the folks at Luxology said. PC performance
>was helped, just not enough to beat the Mac.

You can't even read.

"Alan Baker" <alangbaker[at]telus.net> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-27A66F.23334329072003[at]news.telus.net...
> In article <vie737l4ejracb[at]corp.supernews.com>,
> "James Stutts" <stuttjc[at]knology.net> wrote:
>
> > "Alan Baker" <alangbaker[at]telus.net> wrote in message
> > news:alangbaker-B8CE48.22335908072003[at]news.telus.net...
> > > In article <no-266BDA.13075008072003[at]newssvr15-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
> > > no <no[at]no.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <alangbaker-00ED9D.11203808072003[at]news.telus.net>,
> > > > Alan Baker <alangbaker[at]telus.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > When I suggested that Intel had had longer to work on gcc
> > optimizations
> > > > > for the P4 than Apple has had for the G5 you responded in a way
that
> > > > > implied that they hadn't done so?
> > > >
> > > > Why would Intel work on GCC? ICC is their compiler. Apple Gcc is
> > > > Apple's compiler. Apple works on AGCC, Intel works on ICC.
> > >
> > > So you're claiming that Intel *hasn't* worked on gcc? I want to be
clear
> > > before we proceed.
> >
> > I've seen no evidence that they have spent a dime on gcc for the P4.
> >
> > JCS
> >
> >
>
> Wondeful evasion there James.
>
> Do you believe that Intel has worked on gcc? It's a yes or no question.
>

How can anyone read my statement and consider it an evasion?

For the hard of reading:

"No evidence" means "to the best of my knowledge at the present time - NO".

JCS