Re: FreeBSD Compiler Benchmark: gcc-base vs. gcc-ports vs. clang

2011-03-12 Thread Jakub Lach
Thanks for starting this interesting comparison. Maybe using -march=native would be simpler and more meaningful? I'm thinking about penryns especially. regards, - Jakub Lach -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/FreeBSD-Compiler-Benchmark%3A-gcc-base-vs.-gcc-ports-vs.-cl

Re: FreeBSD Compiler Benchmark: gcc-base vs. gcc-ports vs. clang

2011-03-12 Thread Jakub Lach
"Core i7 based procesors run slower with -march=core2 (new option) on the system compiler than with -march=nocona" Sorry for double mail, isn't CPUTYPE=core2 just alias to nocona with base compiler? -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/FreeBSD-Compiler-Benchmark%3A-gcc-base-

Re: FreeBSD Compiler Benchmark: gcc-base vs. gcc-ports vs. clang

2011-03-12 Thread Martin Matuska
Hi Poul-Henning, I have redone the test for majority of the processors, this time taking 5 samples of each whole testrun, calculating the average, standard deviation, relative standard deviation, standard error and relative standard error. The relative standard error is below 0.25% for ~91%, betw

Re: FreeBSD Compiler Benchmark: gcc-base vs. gcc-ports vs. clang

2011-03-12 Thread Mehmet Erol Sanliturk
2011/3/12 Martin Matuska > Hi Poul-Henning, > > I have redone the test for majority of the processors, this time taking > 5 samples of each whole testrun, calculating the average, standard > deviation, relative standard deviation, standard error and relative > standard error. > > The relative sta

Re: FreeBSD Compiler Benchmark: gcc-base vs. gcc-ports vs. clang

2011-03-12 Thread Mehmet Erol Sanliturk
2011/3/12 Martin Matuska > Hi Poul-Henning, > > I have redone the test for majority of the processors, this time taking > 5 samples of each whole testrun, calculating the average, standard > deviation, relative standard deviation, standard error and relative > standard error. > > The relative sta

Re: FreeBSD Compiler Benchmark: gcc-base vs. gcc-ports vs. clang

2011-03-12 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message <4d7b44af.7040...@freebsd.org>, Martin Matuska writes: Thanks a lot for doing this properly. >What significance level should I take? I think I set ministat(1) to use 95 % confidence level by default and that is in general a pretty safe bet (1 in 20 chance) >I hope this approach is b

Re: FreeBSD Compiler Benchmark: gcc-base vs. gcc-ports vs. clang

2011-03-12 Thread Vinícius Zavam
2011/3/12 Poul-Henning Kamp : > In message <4d7b44af.7040...@freebsd.org>, Martin Matuska writes: > > > Thanks a lot for doing this properly. > >>What significance level should I take? > > I think I set ministat(1) to use 95 % confidence level by default > and that is in general a pretty safe bet (