Chris Cason <del### [at] deletethistoopovrayorg> wrote:
> On the contrary, even if the compiler issues he claims to have
> detected do exist (something I have not investigated), the very fact
> that it would stem from the compiler and not from manual intervention
> on our part demonstrates that he was completely out of line to raise
> the possibility we may have hand-tweaked the code in Intel's favor.

If I understand correctly, he's referring to the official pre-compiled
executable of POV-Ray 3.6 that was being distributed at the time, and
what he's insinuating is that it was deliberately compiled (perhaps
with some compiler options?) to be slower on AMD processors. That's
what I gather from this:

"The funny thing is, I did do that - but the programmer friend who
helped me with Intel's compiler could never reproduce the results in
POV-Ray 3.6.0, despite compiling six different executables with
different optimization levels in an attempt to do so."

What I think he's trying to say here is that compiling POV-Ray 3.6
normally did not produce a slower executable on AMD, therefore the
official binary had to be compiled on purpose to be slower on AMD
by some other means.

(Of course that's not what happened, at least not on purpose, but
this is what I think he's trying to say.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message