GCC and Fortran eat GCJ for lunch at number crunching

Thu Jan 2 15:52:00 GMT 2003

Erik Poupaert wrote:
> http://www.coyotegulch.com/reviews/almabench.html
>> """
> Another surprise was delivered by the weak showing of the GNU gcj compiler.
> For numerical work, at least, there doesn't look to be any reason to use gcj
> (which is only a partial Java implementation) unless you need a bit of extra
> performance in your Pentium III-based Java code. Perhaps I'm missing
> something obvious; clearly this result requires further investigation.
> """

A couple of people have pointed out on slashdot that
compiling with --fast-math makes a huge difference.
-- 
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com http://www.bothner.com/per/