FB builds using gcc 7.5, 8.4 and 9.3

Windows specific questions.
srvaldez
Posts: 2513
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 21:54

FB builds using gcc 7.5, 8.4 and 9.3

Postby srvaldez » May 19, 2020 19:04

http://winlibs.com/ has these versions of the gcc toolchains
although there are a number of dll dependencies on this versions of gcc, the FB compiled exe's seem to be free of them, at least as far as I tested.
Last edited by srvaldez on Jun 04, 2020 18:02, edited 2 times in total.
deltarho[1859]
Posts: 2611
Joined: Jan 02, 2017 0:34
Location: UK

Re: FB builds using gcc 7.5, 8.4 and 9.3

Postby deltarho[1859] » May 19, 2020 19:23

@srvaldez

Well done!

Quick question: Are they using fbc 1.07.1 or 1.08?
srvaldez
Posts: 2513
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 21:54

Re: FB builds using gcc 7.5, 8.4 and 9.3

Postby srvaldez » May 19, 2020 19:36

it's FB-1.08, if you are interested in version 1.07.1 I will go ahead and build them
btw, version 7.5 was the fastest on the n-body test
deltarho[1859]
Posts: 2611
Joined: Jan 02, 2017 0:34
Location: UK

Re: FB builds using gcc 7.5, 8.4 and 9.3

Postby deltarho[1859] » May 19, 2020 19:53

srvaldez wrote:although there are a number of dll dependencies on this versions of gcc, the FB compiled exe's seem to be free of them, at least as far as I tested.

That does not put me off but pairing them with a beta version of fbc does.

With the official version of fbc then I would download them in a flash.
srvaldez
Posts: 2513
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 21:54

Re: FB builds using gcc 7.5, 8.4 and 9.3

Postby srvaldez » May 19, 2020 19:58

Ok, fair enough.
deltarho[1859]
Posts: 2611
Joined: Jan 02, 2017 0:34
Location: UK

Re: FB builds using gcc 7.5, 8.4 and 9.3

Postby deltarho[1859] » May 19, 2020 20:46

Image
1.08 is mentioned in the descriptions - I don't know how I missed that.

Anyway, 1.07.1 versions would be great as the 7.4, 8.3 and 9.2 that I have are 1.07.1.
MrSwiss
Posts: 3610
Joined: Jun 02, 2013 9:27
Location: Switzerland

Re: FB builds using gcc 7.5, 8.4 and 9.3

Postby MrSwiss » May 19, 2020 21:28

@srvaldez,

don't let yourself be deterred from what you're currently doing.
IMO, testing the upcoming version of FBC with more current GCC versions, makes sense.
srvaldez
Posts: 2513
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 21:54

Re: FB builds using gcc 7.5, 8.4 and 9.3

Postby srvaldez » May 20, 2020 1:08

thanks MrSwiss
I think so too, however I added version 1.07.1
deltarho[1859]
Posts: 2611
Joined: Jan 02, 2017 0:34
Location: UK

Re: FB builds using gcc 7.5, 8.4 and 9.3

Postby deltarho[1859] » May 20, 2020 4:36

I don't have an issue with beta versions of anything for testing purposes but there is a world outside of the FreeBASIC forums and I am not prepared to give anyone or publish on the internet an exe compiled with a beta version of fbc.

I will not be replacing gcc 7.4, 8.3 and 9.2 just yet even with fbc 1.07.1. This is what my Cpaths is now. A fair bit of hammering is now required before 'moving up'.

Image

I have looked at one source code to compare binary sizes.

7.4 141312 146432 7.5
8.3 137216 142848 8.4
9.2 137216 143360 9.3

The increases may be down to the older versions being via Equation.com and the later versions via WinLibs.com. 8.3 produces the smallest binaries with the older versions, including 5.2 and 6.4 after much testing and 8.4 produces the smallest binary of the new builds with the one source code looked at here.

Performance-wise is a difficult one to evaluate but the n-body test gave

Code: Select all

     32-bit   64-bit
7.4  6.22s    5.29s
7.5  6.23s    5.28s
8.3  6.29s    5.40s
8.4  6.29s    5.39s
9.2  6.28s    5.39s
9.3  6.28s    5.41s

with '-gen gcc -Wc -O3'

So, no significant differences with that test.

Assuming nothing untoward occurs with these new builds then I could opt for 8.4, with 8.3 as my current default.

@srvaldez

Thank you.
UEZ
Posts: 624
Joined: May 05, 2017 19:59
Location: Germany

Re: FB builds using gcc 7.5, 8.4 and 9.3

Postby UEZ » May 20, 2020 8:44

Here my results using the Line Benchmark w/o AA code:

Code: Select all

            32-Bit / -gen gcc -Wc -O               
1.000.000   0         1         2         3         4         Average               
6.4         6589 ms   2377 ms   1681 ms   1968 ms   2077 ms   2938 ms
7.4         4796 ms   2168 ms   2024 ms   1881 ms   2135 ms   2601 ms
7.5         4974 ms   1926 ms   1801 ms   1743 ms   2137 ms   2516 ms
8.3         5114 ms   1793 ms   1918 ms   4811 ms   2259 ms   3179 ms
8.4         4941 ms   1508 ms   1057 ms   1158 ms    791 ms   1891 ms**
9.2         5452 ms   2042 ms   1993 ms   1825 ms   2251 ms   2713 ms
9.3         4868 ms   1729 ms   1361 ms   1208 ms    952 ms   2024 ms
10.0        5224 ms   2009 ms   1803 ms   1494 ms   2313 ms   2569 ms
11.0        5053 ms   1863 ms   1881 ms   1489 ms   2268 ms   2511 ms


Code: Select all

            64-Bit / -gen gcc -Wc -O               
1.000.000   0         1         2         3         4         Average   
5.2         3540 ms   1573 ms   1353 ms   1480 ms   1304 ms   1850 ms
6.4         3160 ms   1383 ms   1017 ms   1209 ms   1012 ms   1556 ms
7.4         2706 ms   1468 ms    996 ms   1138 ms   1043 ms   1470 ms
7.5         2967 ms   1405 ms   1043 ms   1258 ms   1033 ms   1541 ms
8.3         2527 ms   1460 ms   1049 ms   1474 ms   1123 ms   1527 ms
8.4         3094 ms   1471 ms   1054 ms   1094 ms   1038 ms   1550 ms
9.2         2489 ms   1482 ms    962 ms   1161 ms   1047 ms   1428 ms**
9.3         3049 ms   1506 ms   1056 ms   1099 ms   1026 ms   1547 ms
10.0        2825 ms   1520 ms    990 ms   1074 ms   1019 ms   1486 ms
11.0        2908 ms   1475 ms   1029 ms   1077 ms    979 ms   1494 ms


**winner average.

My test environment:
HP EliteBook 745 G6
AMD Ryzen 5 PRO Mobile 3500U
Radeon Vega Mobile Gfx
16 GB DDR4 memory
Microsoft Windows 10 (10.0) Enterprise Edition 64-bit (Build 18362)


@srvaldez: thanks for your effort to create all the toolchain builds. :-)
Last edited by UEZ on May 21, 2020 14:03, edited 1 time in total.
deltarho[1859]
Posts: 2611
Joined: Jan 02, 2017 0:34
Location: UK

Re: FB builds using gcc 7.5, 8.4 and 9.3

Postby deltarho[1859] » May 20, 2020 13:02

I posted the following a little while ago, I cannot remember when, but it is worth looking at them again. The data is from 75 C/C++ benchmark tests using "-O3 -march=native" on a Core i7 5960X Linux 5.3 kernel. Needless to say the benchmarks covered a range of differing code.

Image
Image

The above plus the fact that gcc 8.3 produced the smallest binaries with a variety of my code is why I opted for 8.3 as my default.

Forgetting 10.0, work in progress at the time, the likelihood is that 8.3 will be the fastest but if we were desperately in need of the fastest for a given application it is worthwhile to test on as many tool-chains as we can because the worst number of first place finishes could be the winner.

Of course, the next question how significant a winner? With the n-body test there isn't one. On the other hand, with UEZ'z tests we do have significant winners.

At the end of the day then for a particular application it is anybodies guess.
srvaldez
Posts: 2513
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 21:54

Re: FB builds using gcc 7.5, 8.4 and 9.3

Postby srvaldez » May 20, 2020 16:34

@UEZ
as posted, your functions go from 0 to 4, here's my result
fbc -arch native -gen gcc -Wc -Ofast

Code: Select all

Result for 2,000,000 lines:

Function      0        1        2        3       4
gcc-5.2x64 2168.40  1152.06   994.76   878.22  737.97
gcc-6.4x64 2525.12  1343.99  1165.53  1075.96  939.66
gcc-7.5x64 2131.88  1394.96   991.69  1059.29  948.17
gcc-8.1x64 2211.88  1326.46   959.24   983.08  944.41
gcc-8.3x64 2135.19  1331.39   959.08   976.78  963.65
gcc-8.4x64 2209.79  1324.07   953.77  1068.93  941.44
gcc-9.2x64 1930.25  1127.83   799.01   864.88  738.71
gcc-9.3x64 2229.51  1134.50   779.37   777.89  726.39
gcc-10x64  1915.21  1225.88   784.60   788.63  729.40
gcc-11x64  1906.44  1147.74   755.40   778.53  708.44
dodicat
Posts: 6687
Joined: Jan 10, 2006 20:30
Location: Scotland

Re: FB builds using gcc 7.5, 8.4 and 9.3

Postby dodicat » May 21, 2020 8:10

Why not have a test with gas64 also?
Nowadays I do a test run with gas64, and report any hiccups to SARG.
I have been messing around with c++ lately.
Seems to me that g++ (gcc also) does not specialise in backward compatibility, the FreeBASIC compiler writers always seem keen on being able to run old code at each stage (except when they dismissed suffixes, but that was a one off.)
UEZ
Posts: 624
Joined: May 05, 2017 19:59
Location: Germany

Re: FB builds using gcc 7.5, 8.4 and 9.3

Postby UEZ » May 21, 2020 13:49

Here the result using SARG's fbc64_gas64.exe from 19th April.

Code: Select all

            64-Bit / -gen gcc -Wc -O               
1.000.000   0         1         2         3         4
SARG        2461 ms   1445 ms   1057 ms   1106 ms   889 ms


So far the fastest in average (1392 ms)!
deltarho[1859]
Posts: 2611
Joined: Jan 02, 2017 0:34
Location: UK

Re: FB builds using gcc 7.5, 8.4 and 9.3

Postby deltarho[1859] » May 21, 2020 18:52

@UEZ

I have not taken much interest in gas64 but it is very difficult to ignore 1392ms.

It seems to me that the 'latest and greatest' should always be available at the opening post and not expect us to wade through pages and pages looking for updates to this and that. So, I went to the opening post and downloaded. On the first attempt to compile I was told that the bin folder could not be found. That did not surprise me because I could not find it either. Image

Would you be good enough to let me what I need to download to try gas64? I am on Windows only.

I assume that you have put gas64 into SetCompilerPathsII and, if so, what does your SetCompilerPathsII.ini look like?

Cheers.

Return to “Windows”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests