On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote: > > So I do apologize to the person. I don't to the code. > > I wanted to verify whether my gut was correct (minimal amount of output, > and > stdout is in fact buffered - output shouldn't move the needle) and asked > Dmitry to rerun the C test on the same system, but this time with the > output > code completely commented out: > real 0m0.011s (+- 0.01) > user 0m0.011s (+- 0.01) > sys 0m0.001s > > Apologies to the code might be in order :) > > The source of the JIT engine's edge is, as Dmitry and Andi said, the > CPU-specific optimizations that gcc -O2 doesn't generate, and therefore it > can actually be faster than a generic native executable in some (I would > guess not all that common) cases. >
That's why one may run GCC -march=native when mastering the hardware. I guess here, no JIT can outperform that. Julien.P
