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.
FB builds using gcc 7.5, 8.4 and 9.3
FB builds using gcc 7.5, 8.4 and 9.3
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.
-
- Posts: 4307
- Joined: Jan 02, 2017 0:34
- Location: UK
- Contact:
Re: FB builds using gcc 7.5, 8.4 and 9.3
@srvaldez
Well done!
Quick question: Are they using fbc 1.07.1 or 1.08?
Well done!
Quick question: Are they using fbc 1.07.1 or 1.08?
Re: FB builds using gcc 7.5, 8.4 and 9.3
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
btw, version 7.5 was the fastest on the n-body test
-
- Posts: 4307
- Joined: Jan 02, 2017 0:34
- Location: UK
- Contact:
Re: FB builds using gcc 7.5, 8.4 and 9.3
That does not put me off but pairing them with a beta version of fbc does.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.
With the official version of fbc then I would download them in a flash.
Re: FB builds using gcc 7.5, 8.4 and 9.3
Ok, fair enough.
-
- Posts: 4307
- Joined: Jan 02, 2017 0:34
- Location: UK
- Contact:
Re: FB builds using gcc 7.5, 8.4 and 9.3
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.
Re: FB builds using gcc 7.5, 8.4 and 9.3
@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.
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.
Re: FB builds using gcc 7.5, 8.4 and 9.3
thanks MrSwiss
I think so too, however I added version 1.07.1
I think so too, however I added version 1.07.1
-
- Posts: 4307
- Joined: Jan 02, 2017 0:34
- Location: UK
- Contact:
Re: FB builds using gcc 7.5, 8.4 and 9.3
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'.
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
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.
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'.
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
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.
Re: FB builds using gcc 7.5, 8.4 and 9.3
Here my results using the Line Benchmark w/o AA code:
**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. :-)
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
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.
-
- Posts: 4307
- Joined: Jan 02, 2017 0:34
- Location: UK
- Contact:
Re: FB builds using gcc 7.5, 8.4 and 9.3
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.
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.
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.
Re: FB builds using gcc 7.5, 8.4 and 9.3
@UEZ
as posted, your functions go from 0 to 4, here's my result
fbc -arch native -gen gcc -Wc -Ofast
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
Re: FB builds using gcc 7.5, 8.4 and 9.3
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.)
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.)
Re: FB builds using gcc 7.5, 8.4 and 9.3
Here the result using SARG's fbc64_gas64.exe from 19th April.
So far the fastest in average (1392 ms)!
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
-
- Posts: 4307
- Joined: Jan 02, 2017 0:34
- Location: UK
- Contact:
Re: FB builds using gcc 7.5, 8.4 and 9.3
@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.
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.
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.
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.