Re: [Boost-users] [serialization] binary_iarchive performancedegradation with Intel 9.0 compiler

From: Bill Lear (rael_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-05 15:21:39

On Monday, June 5, 2006 at 10:07:03 (-0700) Robert Ramey writes:
>...
>
>This would require pretty determined sleuthing.  Here are some
>suggestions - in no particular order.
>
>How does the size of the executable vary.  It shouldn't - but if
>it does that would indicate extra code being instantiated.

Hmm, first bit of data: with all headers included, the executable size
goes up considerably.  6.1 Megabytes versus 14 Megabytes.

>[other ideas]
>...
>Is there an execution time profiler facilty available which shows
>which functions are consuming how much time.  Intel prides
>itself on its tools in this area.  That might be very help to
>check these out.

I may try this out.

I tried to reproduce this on a smaller scale, with something
reasonably complicated, though still relatively simple, compared to
what I'm working with --- to no avail.  Got the same times, and the
executables were exactly the same size (though differ in byte-by-byte
comparison).

Well, hopefully over time I'll be able to build up my example to
something more complex that starts to exhibit this behavior, or
perhaps one of the Intel tools can shed some light.

Perhaps, though, it's time to send a bug report to Intel and ask them
what's wrong with their compiler!:-)

Bill