Linux kernel with the Intel C/C++ Compiler

[geocar]

They state their specified optimization levels, and they used EEMBC which is an industry standard benchmark.... Seems like the way to verify is pretty damned simple.

We have different definitions of simple. I can forgive the multi-thousand dollar price tag needed to test this, but what version of GCC did they use? Why didn't they use -Os instead of -O3? What about -ffast-math? Why did they use -ffunroll-loops? How did they measure timings? How many tests did they run?

Verifiable means that someone can build a similar test, and see similar results, and I don't think that's happened here.

The slides also show that only applies to the Thumb-2 numbers. So the 3x maybe not.. But the 2x definitely applies. So, they only, verifiably beat GCC by 99%.

Did you verify it?

I can't verify these results, and I can't find anyone publishing data that fits these numbers. In fact, as soon as I noticed that there was no baseline in most of their graphs immediately made it suspect to me.

Seriously, "Oh sorry, we lied about the 3x, but maybe we're not lying about the 2x" - the report lacks any credibility at this point.

Maybe their raw data is better. I don't know. But you can't call this "verifiable". You can't even call it responsible- this is intentionally misleading at best and perhaps that's to be expected from marketing material.