A comparison between lcc-win32, gcc, and Intel's icl compiler

王朝网络·vc·作者佚名  2006-01-08
宽屏版  字体: |||超大  

Comparison details:

The best compiler for the intel processors is surely icl, the compiler of Intel Corporation. It benefits of the inmense resources and know-how of Intel Corp.

GCC is a compiler that shares with lcc-win32 its low price, but has a long development history, and a team of many people dedicated to it.

lcc-win32 has been the result of the work of just three people. There is no budget, no institution whatsoever funding this work. In light of this conditions, the performances of lcc-win32 are quite acceptable, in my opinion.

Two different source sets were used for this comparison:

The source code of egcs 1.1b itself. Around 12 Megabytes of C source, this code represents a real complex application.

The symbolic calculator GP of Grenoble University in France. This code was used to measure the pure CPU integer speed in a real context of complex calculations. This program doesn't do any disk access other than reading a very small source file written in the calculator's internal language. The sources represent approx 1.5 megabytes of C code.

The version of gcc used was GNU C++ version egcs-2.91.57

The version of the icl compiler was version 2.4 P97176

The version of lcc was 2.4, compiled Nov-3 98

The machine used was a pentium MMX (intel) at 200MHZ with 64MB RAM.

Compiling egcs 1.1b

Icl compiler was given -Os (optimize for size), gcc was given -O, and lcc was given -O. If I changed the gcc optimizations for -O9, execution speed actually increased..., so I kept just plain -O, that seems to generate better code.

Compilation time with optimizations

icl

650 sec

gcc

472 sec

lcc

213 sec

Compilation time with no optimizations

icl

236 sec

gcc

400 sec

lcc

198.4 sec

To measure the speed of the resulting executable, the same source file was used: a large file of 270.999 bytes C source, that was given to the three generated compilers. The exact command line is:

xxx.exe -O9 win32.c

All executables were started twice, and only the second time was significant to avoid the influence of the disk cache.

Execution time (optimized)

icl

33.7 sec

gcc

35.6 sec

lcc

39.8 sec

Execution time (no optimizations)

icl

43.5 sec

gcc

46.6 sec

lcc

47.8 sec

Code size (optimized)

icl

2 056 192

gcc

1 728 000

lcc

1 831 968

Code size (no optimizations)

icl

2 946 048

gcc

2 679 808

lcc

2 213 920

Compiling the symbolic calculator 'gp'

Icl compiler was given -Ox. gcc was given -O, and lcc was given -O.

Compilation time with optimizations

icl

192.3 sec

gcc

175 sec

lcc

43.5 sec

Compilation time with no optimizations

icl

73 sec

gcc

152.2 sec

lcc

36.9 sec

Code size with optimizations

icl

1 033 728

gcc

786 432

lcc

785 440

Code size with no optimizations

icl

1 218 560

gcc

1 248 256

lcc

969 248

Execution time with optimizations

icl

35 sec

gcc

40.3 sec

lcc

44 sec

Execution time with no optimizations

icl

48.8 sec

gcc

60.7 sec

lcc

51.3 sec

A floating point comparison

As measure I used a matrix multiplication program. Since the source is very small (37K) there is no point in measuring the compilation speed. I used the option -0x for intel, -02 for gcc, and -O for lcc. The results are as follows:

icl

3.9 sec

gcc

4.8 sec

lcc

5.6 sec

It must be noted that Intel's compiler comes with a very high performance floating point math library. lcc (as gcc) uses the standard library of windows

Another important point is that the results of icl and lcc were exactly identical. The results of gcc differed after the 13th digit.

 
 
 
免责声明:本文为网络用户发布,其观点仅代表作者个人观点,与本站无关,本站仅提供信息存储服务。文中陈述内容未经本站证实,其真实性、完整性、及时性本站不作任何保证或承诺,请读者仅作参考,并请自行核实相关内容。
© 2005- 王朝网络 版权所有