Slashdot Mirror
A Review of GCC 4.0
ChaoticCoyote writes "
I've just posted a short review of GCC 4.0, which compares it against GCC 3.4.3 on Opteron and Pentium 4 systems, using LAME, POV-Ray, the Linux kernel, and SciMark2 as benchmarks. My conclusion:
Is GCC 4.0 better than its predecessors? In terms of raw numbers, the answer is a definite "no". I've tried GCC 4.0 on other programs, with similar results to the tests above, and I won't be recompiling my Gentoo systems with GCC 4.0 in the near future. The GCC 3.4 series still has life in it, and the GCC folk have committed to maintaining it. A 3.4.4 update is pending as I write this.
That said, no one should expect a "point-oh-point-oh" release to deliver the full potential of a product, particularly when it comes to a software system with the complexity of GCC. Version 4.0.0 is laying a foundation for the future, and should be seen as a technological step forward with new internal architectures and the addition of Fortran 95. If you compile a great deal of C++, you'll want to investigate GCC 4.0.
Keep an eye on 4.0. Like a baby, we won't really appreciate its value until it's matured a bit.
"
Some people spend 10 hours tweaking compiler settings and optimizations to get an extra 5% performance from their code.
Other people spend 2 hours selecting the proper algorithm in the first place and get an extra 500% performance from their code.
To semi-quote The Matrix: One of these endeavors... is intelligent. And one of them is not.
It's damn fast for KDE compile as someone tested.
Yes and no. The default compiler is GCC4, however, the kernel and much of the OS (pretty much all of Darwin, in fact) are still compiled with GCC3 because they haven't completely cleared the codebase of GCC3-isms.
That said, remember that the submitter is talking about GCC4 on x86 platforms, and remember that Apple is putting a lot of work into making sure the PowerPC optimizations are as good as possible. Not to mention things like GCC4's auto-vectorization of code to take advantage of the Altivec unit (which has a more noticeable effect than MMXing x86 code).
It would be nice to see some test results for Apple's GCC versions 3 and 4.
Significant difference. If you ask gcc folk (like me), we'd happily tell you that 4.0 will probably be, performance wise, win in some cases, and a lose in others. Anytime you add large numbers of optimizations, it takes a while to tune everything else so that we get good generated code. 4.0 is more a test of the new optimizers than something that is supposed to produce spectacular results in all cases.
This was meant as a joke, but for those who took this too seriously: if you have ever tried building GCC yourself, you should know that it always recompiles itself.
A gcc "stage 1" build is gcc compiled with your old compiler. The "stage 2" build is gcc compiled with the compiler created in the previous stage. This is the one that gets installed. The "stage 3" build is optional and verifies that the "stage 2" compiler creates the same output as the previous one.
I found this in the osnews announcement
"Before we get a bunch of complaints about the fact that most binaries generated by GCC 4.0 are only marginally faster (and some a bit slower) than those compiled with 3.4, let me point out a few things that I've gathered from casually browsing the GCC development lists. I'm neither a GCC contributor nor a compiler expert.
Prior to GCC 4.0, the implementation of optimizations was mostly language-specific; there was little or no integration of optimization techniques across all languages. The main goal of the 4.0 release is to roll out a new, unified optimization framework (Tree-SSA), and to begin converting the old, fragmented optimization strategies to the unified framework.
Major improvements to the quality of the generated code aren't expected to arrive until later versions, when GCC contributors will have had a chance to really begin to leverage the new optimization infrastructure instead of just migrating to it.
So, although GCC 4.0 brings fairly dramatic benefits to compilation speed, the speed of generated binaries isn't expected to be markedly better than 3.4; that latter speedup isn't expected until later installments in the 4.x series."
There was one test case I did for my own use. I've got a small C++ program that's computationally heavey and has a small working set of memory.
On that program (on a P4) I got an 11% reduction in runtime using GCC 4 vs. GCC 3.3.5. This was actually a big deal for me work.
The lesson here: You're mileage with GCC 4.0's improvements may vary from the benchmarks, and you might want to try it on your own code.
Recently, a discussion took place on a FreeBSD mailing list wether the project wanted to use GCC 4.0.0 as the system compiler. Some objections where:
If I understood it right, We won't have a GCC 4.0.0 system compiler on FreeBSD anytime soon. Installing the gcc40 port is, of course, always possible.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
The GP was a joke, but since you're serious, this is exactly what the "bootstrapping" build of gcc does: it builds a stage 1 build with the system compiler, then a stage 2 build with the stage 1 build, then -- if you want -- a stage 3 build with the stage 2 build, and verifies that the stage 2 and stage 3 builds are the same.
Sorry to tell you this, but the review is even mistaken with respect to Povray. Povray is not a C++ program - it's good ol' C. So in fact, none of the programs he benchmarked were C++. The test was exclusively on C code.
As nice as C is, a lot of the improvements in GCC seemed to have been targetted at improving its handling of C++ code. I'd particularly like to know how it fairs with respect to modern C++ style code - massively templated stuff with STL, Boost, traits and policies, smart pointers, lots of small inlined methods, etc. This test tells me nothing about that, and that's where a lot of development is these days.
I think you are over estimating the interest of the research community in working on gcc. The move from the intentionally underdocumented and ill defined intermediate representations to tree ssa is a huge step for gcc. Unfortunately, there is still no real effort to make the platform attractive to do experimental work on.
The McCat compiler from McGill (which is what gcc borrowed the ssa rep from), C-- or the LLVM project all provide a much nicer platform. The internal representation is clearly documented, there are frameworks and examples for writing new passes and most importantly they all allow for whole program compilation.
Until gcc decides to support some of this the project will continue to be ignored by research groups. This might be fine since research compiler work can be fairly ugly and it is just easier to port what works.
Otherwise I agree that the move to ssa form is a critical step for gcc to take and it will enable it to become a "modern" compiler. More emportantly it will enable the inclusion of the large body of compiler work that is based on ssa forms.
Mark
You need to read up on the -march, -mfpmath, -mmmx, -msse, -msse2, -msse3, and -m3dnow options.
If you build gcc yourself, you can even make them the default by configuring with an appropriate --with-arch option.
Yes, as long as it wasn't miscompiled.
/without optimizations/ to produce a slow GCC 4.0 which can be used to compile itself. This is done twice (stage 1 compiles stage 2 and stage 2 compiles stage 3) so that 2 and 3 can be compared to ensure that there were no miscompilations, as it is unlikely that a miscompiled compiler will produce correctly executable machine code that replicates exactly.
Historically, GCC tends to bring out the worst in compilers. That is why when you build GCC, the system compiler will be used once,
Unlikely but possible. Look for the paper "Reflections on trusting trust" for a beautiful hack involving intentional miscompilations. The author basically changed the compiler so that when "login" was being compiled, the compiler inserted a back door. And when a new compiler was being compiled, the compiler would insert the code to insert the back door and to change the next compiler. And then no matter how much you checked teh source to either login or the compiler, you would never notice the back door.
you mean http://www.acm.org/classics/sep95/ ?
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register