Ben Shoemaker wrote:
Success! I was able to build on WinXP using Scons and minGW (with gcc4.3.3).
Here's what (finally) worked for me:
1. Install Python 2.6.2
http://www.python.org/ftp/python/2.6.2/python-2.6.2.msi
2. Install minGW (using TDM's installer on empty minGW directory)
http://down
You have to take into account that there is time needed to load base
position and score the game after playout.
I remember that in my old tests it was around 180 cc per move.
(libego got a little bit faster since then)
Lukasz
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 18:56, Jason House wrote:
>
> Of course, I now
Of course, I now realize what I missed after sending it. Playout vs.
Playout move... At a little over 100 moves per playout, our numbers
agree
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 24, 2009, at 12:54 PM, Jason House
wrote:
My math seems to be way different
1e9 / 45000= 22,222 cycles per playout
My math seems to be way different
1e9 / 45000= 22,222 cycles per playout
On Apr 24, 2009, at 12:22 PM, Michael Williams > wrote:
According to my math, that comes out to around 205 cycles per
playout move. Pretty damn good, I'd say.
Łukasz Lew wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 01:52, Łukasz L
According to my math, that comes out to around 205 cycles per playout move.
Pretty damn good, I'd say.
Łukasz Lew wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 01:52, Łukasz Lew wrote:
I get
g++-4.1 35 kpps/GHz
g++-4.2 45 kpps/GHz
g++-4.3 40 kpps/GHz
I'm happy it's quite consistent on core2
I'm curiou
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 01:52, Łukasz Lew wrote:
> I get
> g++-4.1 35 kpps/GHz
> g++-4.2 45 kpps/GHz
> g++-4.3 40 kpps/GHz
> I'm happy it's quite consistent on core2
>
> I'm curious about 4.4 as well.
g++-4.4 45 kpps/GHz
package gcc-snapshot on ubuntu
$ /usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/bin/g++ --version
I get
g++-4.1 35 kpps/GHz
g++-4.2 45 kpps/GHz
g++-4.3 40 kpps/GHz
I'm happy it's quite consistent on core2
I'm curious about 4.4 as well.
Lukasz
PS
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 01:29, Adrian Grajdeanu wrote:
> I have two benchmarks:
>
> On an: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU T7200 @ 2.00GHz step
I have two benchmarks:
On an: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU T7200 @ 2.00GHz stepping 06
g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 4.1.2 20070925 (Red Hat 4.1.2-33)
I had to modify SConstruct to refer to the default g++, not g++.4.2
and had to remove -march=native
= Benchmarking, please wait ...
= 20
Hi Łukasz ,
It's fixed now. Thanks a lot!
laptop:/u/SW/src/lukaszlew-libego-e4acac7545770fe008c1ff30cf99f874fd7e9272$
build/example/opt/ego
= Benchmarking, please wait ...
= 20 playouts in 2.83218 seconds
70.6171 kpps
34.8904 kpps/GHz (clock independent)
105316/94359 (black wins / white win
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 01:25, elife wrote:
> On my "Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T7200 @ 2.00GHz", using linux and
> the exact compiler libego was tuned for, I get 70 kpps/GHz.
>
> = 20 playouts in 2.85618 seconds
> 70.0236 kpps
> -154.124 kpps/GHz (clock independent)
I found this kind o
There's a big difference between kpps and kpps/GHz! For your system,
you need to divide by two (and on my core2, divide by 1.66).
For raw kpps, I think I had 70 on my core2 and 100 on the AMD64.
Do you consistently get garbage such as -154.124 for your kpps/GHz?
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 22
On my "Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T7200 @ 2.00GHz", using linux and
the exact compiler libego was tuned for, I get 70 kpps/GHz.
= 20 playouts in 2.85618 seconds
70.0236 kpps
-154.124 kpps/GHz (clock independent)
104896/94794 (black wins / white wins)
__
That seems like a good speed.
On my "Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T5450 @ 1.66GHz", using linux and
the exact compiler libego was tuned for, I get 42 kpps/GHz.
On my "AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5000+", using the same
compiler, I only get 37 kpps/GHz.
On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 18
After I used a better MinGW build, with a newer gcc (the one Ben suggested), I
get must better results with no compiler warnings:
40.0609 kpps/GHz
Lukasz, the march options of native, i686 and core2 all worked and came out to
similar results with i686 being slightly faster for me.
Łukasz Lew
I do have a core2, but it complained about that switch:
ego/ego.cpp:1: error: bad value (core2) for -march= switch
ego/ego.cpp:1: error: bad value (core2) for -mtune= switch
example/main.cpp:1: error: bad value (core2) for -march= switch
example/main.cpp:1: error: bad value (core2) for -mtune= sw
2009/4/22 Michael Williams :
> This worked for me:
> C:\Libego\lukaszlew-libego-476a46885f80e1f4d83494bb632398b3974e901b>g++ -o
> engine.exe ego/ego.cpp example/main.cpp -O3 -Iego -fomit-frame-pointer
> -ffast-math -frename-registers
>
> (I removed the -march switch)
>
> 22.5101 kpps/GHz
No too mu
This worked for me:
C:\Libego\lukaszlew-libego-476a46885f80e1f4d83494bb632398b3974e901b>g++ -o engine.exe ego/ego.cpp example/main.cpp -O3 -Iego -fomit-frame-pointer -ffast-math
-frename-registers
(I removed the -march switch)
22.5101 kpps/GHz
And I was able to create a DLL like this:
C:\Li
is helps.
Ben.
- Original Message
From: Łukasz Lew
To: computer-go
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 3:38:14 AM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Digital Mars
Please download newest version, I made some ifdefWIN 32 ... to aid
mingw porting.
http://github.com/lukaszlew/libego/zipball/master
Under lin
Please download newest version, I made some ifdefWIN 32 ... to aid
mingw porting.
http://github.com/lukaszlew/libego/zipball/master
Under linux I can cross compile to windows binary with a following command
$ i586-mingw32msvc-g++ -o engine.exe ego/ego.cpp example/main.cpp -O3
-march=native -Iego -
Ok, I have Mingw installed now. That sounds like the way to go. But I still
don't know how to compile it :/
According to the SConstruct file, I should be doing something like this to
build, but it complains:
C:\Libego> g++ /Fobuild\ego\dbg\ego.obj /c ego\ego.cpp -DDEBUG -ggdb3 -Wall
-Wextr
2009/4/21 Łukasz Lew
> Funny story:
> I have worse performance with g++-4.3 (20% as well)
> I probably overoptimized for g++-4.2 or something :)
>
> FYI g++4.4 is about to be released. it is already in experimental
> debian repository
>
> Lukasz
>
> 2009/4/21 Adrian Grajdeanu :
> > Just to add my
Funny story:
I have worse performance with g++-4.3 (20% as well)
I probably overoptimized for g++-4.2 or something :)
FYI g++4.4 is about to be released. it is already in experimental
debian repository
Lukasz
2009/4/21 Adrian Grajdeanu :
> Just to add my 2c for the performance freaks. I've notic
Just to add my 2c for the performance freaks. I've noticed that code
generated by g++ 4.3.x was about 40-45% faster non-optimized when
compared to previous versions of g++ (native linux platform). When
optimizing code (-O3), 4.3 generated code that was 20% faster. This is
probably the more rele
2009/4/21 Łukasz Lew :
> mingw rules!
> I compiled libego with it and got a decent 32kpps / GHz ( native g++
> was 44kpps / GHz)
I used wine to run resulting exe on linux:)
>
> Lukasz
>
> 2009/4/21 Don Dailey :
>> I use mingw to produce cros platform executables. I can build executables
>> for
mingw rules!
I compiled libego with it and got a decent 32kpps / GHz ( native g++
was 44kpps / GHz)
Lukasz
2009/4/21 Don Dailey :
> I use mingw to produce cros platform executables. I can build executables
> for linux, win32 and win64, which for my chess program is a must since it's
> 64 bit.
>
I use mingw to produce cros platform executables. I can build executables
for linux, win32 and win64, which for my chess program is a must since it's
64 bit.
- Don
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 5:33 AM, Łukasz Lew wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:23, elife wrote:
> >> I forgot about cygwin ind
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:23, elife wrote:
>> I forgot about cygwin indeed. It is a good idea.
>> But can you ran the binary on a system without cygwin?
>
> We can run the binary on a system without cygwin if we provide cygwin1.dll.
That is great.
Another good idea is mingw.
BTW
I would like to
> I forgot about cygwin indeed. It is a good idea.
> But can you ran the binary on a system without cygwin?
We can run the binary on a system without cygwin if we provide cygwin1.dll.
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.co
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 04:59, Jason House wrote:
> I always recommend cygwin. I'm a linux guy and can't live without all my
> little tools and simple package installation. You should be able to get the
> exact gcc libego was optimized for that way.
I forgot about cygwin indeed. It is a good idea
I always recommend cygwin. I'm a linux guy and can't live without all
my little tools and simple package installation. You should be able to
get the exact gcc libego was optimized for that way.
I use the digital mars d compiler and it's blazingly fast. All my d
files can compile and link fa
>From my expirience on windows, the best results I had with Intel C++ compiler
http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-c-compiler-professional-edition-for-windows-evaluation/
It had around 70%-90% of g++.
Lukasz
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 03:18, Michael Williams
wrote:
> I got Libego compile
I got Libego compiled to a Windows DLL using Visual Studio and was able to call it, but I was only getting around 5k pps on my Core2. So I wanted to try
another compiler. Has anyone used the Digital Mars C++ compiler? Or is there another compiler I should try?
_
32 matches
Mail list logo
