Current builds not GM

Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
Why? Because they *just* froze the gcc development for Jaguar.



Which means now all the code is recompiled using the latest version, tested for bugs, and *then* submitted as FC to be considered for GM.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 15
    jambojambo Posts: 3,036member
    All that debug code, so little time <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
  • Reply 2 of 15
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Heh.



    "That not be debug code, that be planned obsolescence!"
  • Reply 3 of 15
    synsyn Posts: 329member
    so how much of a speed increase can we expect from gcc3.1 alone? I know some of the SPEC benchmmarks should perform better, anyone able to quantify this?
  • Reply 4 of 15
    [quote]Originally posted by SYN:

    <strong>so how much of a speed increase can we expect from gcc3.1 alone?</strong><hr></blockquote>I recall Eugene performing some tests with LAME and I believe he saw an average of 10% faster performance. Andrew Welch (aka moki) said on MacNN that apps could see as much as a 20% speed boost from the new compiler.



    Of course, with each app YMMV.
  • Reply 5 of 15
    bluejekyllbluejekyll Posts: 103member
    Every time I have updated compilers, I have rarely seen much difference in speed.



    It might make a difference in poorly optimizable programs, but if you write good code, there shouldn't be too much of a difference.



    Although, there is supposed to be better assembly produced by gcc3 for ppc so we could notice some benefits in branch prediction and such...
  • Reply 6 of 15
    franckfranck Posts: 135member
    [quote]Originally posted by Kickaha:

    <strong>Why? Because they *just* froze the gcc development for Jaguar.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Does this imply that Jaguar wasn't compiled with GCC3.1or I am missing something ?
  • Reply 7 of 15
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    It means that the version of gcc3.1 that they were using to compile Jaguar builds up until now wasn't necessarily as good at outputting optimized code, or it may have had bugs that produced pipeline bubbles, etc. (Then again, it may have been better. I doubt it though, the crew doing the gcc work at Apple is top notch, and bug squashing has been in full force recently.)



    I don't think it's possible to say that builds from now on will be *faster*, only that they weren't *final* versions.



    This isn't any sort of comment on the speed, just the scheduling.
  • Reply 8 of 15
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    [quote]Originally posted by BlueJekyll:

    <strong>Every time I have updated compilers, I have rarely seen much difference in speed.



    It might make a difference in poorly optimizable programs, but if you write good code, there shouldn't be too much of a difference.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Weeeeeeell, if you write good code, where 'good' is defined as what the compiler can most easily handle.



    Now, given that, most compilers try and target code structures that are commonly considered 'good' in practice. ("Make the common case fast.")



    [quote]<strong>Although, there is supposed to be better assembly produced by gcc3 for ppc so we could notice some benefits in branch prediction and such...</strong><hr></blockquote>



    *Much* better code is produced now. In some very specific and special cases, an order of magnitude better. Really. (The PPC gcc3 branch was pretty poor before Apple got ahold of it...)
  • Reply 9 of 15
    cindercinder Posts: 381member
    so, in other words.



    it might be faster

    and it might not be



    <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
  • Reply 10 of 15
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    I certainly can't imagine the final build being any *slower* than the current ones, due to compiler issues, but I don't think anyone can say they'll be appreciably faster. Maybe a few tenths of a percentage point here or there. The major work on gcc3 has been in good shape for a while now, with the recent work being mostly on squashing strange little bugs that come up when compiling specific types of code interactions.



    Expect it to be quite a bit faster than 10.1, in any case.
  • Reply 11 of 15
    smirclesmircle Posts: 1,035member
    Originally posted by cinder:

    [quote]so, in other words.

    it might be faster

    and it might not be

    <hr></blockquote>



    If it will be faster, the latest changes in the GCC will not be the reason. Do not expect too much.
  • Reply 12 of 15
    xaqtlyxaqtly Posts: 450member
    A lot of stuff in Jaguar happens faster than it does in 10.1.5, for example. Opening apps seems to be faster across the board. It really is pretty snappy now. I look forward to when the debug code is removed.
  • Reply 13 of 15
    nadennaden Posts: 28member
    [quote]Originally posted by Smircle:

    <strong>Originally posted by cinder:



    If it will be faster, the latest changes in the GCC will not be the reason. Do not expect too much.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I take it your not a developer.



    People will notice the same speed jump from 10.1-&gt;10.2 as they did from 10.0-&gt;10.1. And a significant reason for this is improvements by GCC. Version 3.1, has general GCC improvements as well as having lots of PowerPC optimisations. Apple is claiming a rough 10%-15% increase just by recompiling OSX.



    Developers recompiling their apps using GCC 3.1 should notice a similar 10%-15% increase in performance. Those apps that are especially processor intensive would probably be higher.
  • Reply 14 of 15
    pbpb Posts: 4,233member
    [quote]Originally posted by Kickaha:

    <strong>Why? Because they *just* froze the gcc development for Jaguar.



    Which means now all the code is recompiled using the latest version, tested for bugs, and *then* submitted as FC to be considered for GM.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    What's that?



    <a href="http://bbs.xlr8yourmac.com/ubb/Forum23/HTML/000565.html"; target="_blank">http://bbs.xlr8yourmac.com/ubb/Forum23/HTML/000565.html</a>;
  • Reply 15 of 15
    smirclesmircle Posts: 1,035member
    Originally posted by naden:

    [quote]

    I take it your not a developer.

    <hr></blockquote>

    As a matter of fact, I happen to be one.



    [quote]

    People will notice the same speed jump from 10.1-&gt;10.2 as they did from 10.0-&gt;10.1. And a significant reason for this is improvements by GCC. <hr></blockquote>



    I was comparing the GCC 3-prerelease to the GCC 3 final.
Sign In or Register to comment.