Re: Can gforth make excutibles for linux that don't need gforth interpeter?

Path	csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!zen.net.uk!dedekind.zen.co.uk!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From	"Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.forth
Subject	Re: Can gforth make excutibles for linux that don't need gforth interpeter?
Date	Sun, 11 May 2014 11:32:17 -0400
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines	43
Message-ID	<op.xfpb33k46zenlw@localhost> (permalink)
References	<3b90f0c4-024f-4e70-8644-a468de36be91@googlegroups.com> <op.xfn8gvyg6zenlw@localhost> <lkn1hk$5d6$1@news.albasani.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host	CNsg4fVcCsvs3UaOgZtQCw.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding	7bit
X-Complaints-To	abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent	Opera Mail/12.16 (Linux)
X-Notice	Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref	csiph.com comp.lang.forth:30291

Show key headers only | View raw

On Sun, 11 May 2014 01:24:04 -0400, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 May 2014 21:15:57 -0400
> "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> wrote:

>> You also need to take into account that GCC is not known
>> for producing especially fast compiled C code, as compared
>> to other C compilers, like OpenWatcom.
>
> Hm, that was true perhaps 10 years ago but now I see that
> gcc is able to vectorize where icpc and clang can't...
> Eg
> void init_cumul()
> {
>   for(int k=0;k<N;k++)
>     array[k]=k/3+k;
> }
> gcc 4.8 and later are able to vectorize while intel icc
> 13.1.1 and clang 3.5 can't...
>

My recently installed, up-to-date, Linux is only up to 4.5.2 ...

I.e.,
1) How many versions of Linux have the most recent GCC?
2) How many people have the latest and greatest GCC?
3) How little does vectorization improve general C code?

The version of GCC which I mainly use is 3.4.1 (DJGPP for DOS).
The area which I consider GCC to be especially weak is characters.
The older v1.3 OpenWatcom dramatically outperforms GCC 3.4.1 here.
Maybe, that's fixed in 4.x series somewhere, but OW is many
versions past that too, now.  They would likely need to update
GAS to support the entire x86 instruction set, instead of the
limited subset GCC uses (if they haven't already).

Anyway, we're off the topic of getting Gavino to think about
stuff prior to posting random thoughts, researching some answers
for himself, or researching responses for himself to counter my
"radical" claims.

RP
P.S. "... versions of Linux ..."  What's the plural of Linux?

Thread

Can gforth make excutibles for linux that don't need gforth interpeter? the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2014-05-10 14:47 -0700
  Re: Can gforth make excutibles for linux that don't need gforth interpeter? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-10 21:15 -0400
    Re: Can gforth make excutibles for linux that don't need gforth interpeter? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-05-11 07:24 +0200
      Re: Can gforth make excutibles for linux that don't need gforth interpeter? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-11 11:32 -0400
        Re: Can gforth make excutibles for linux that don't need gforth interpeter? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-05-11 18:03 +0200
        Re: Can gforth make excutibles for linux that don't need gforth interpeter? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-05-12 03:27 -0500
    Re: Can gforth make excutibles for linux that don't need gforth interpeter? the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2014-05-11 16:46 -0700

csiph-web