--- Additional Comments From gerald at pfeifer dot com 2005-02-07 23:09
---
I had done extensive benchmarks around New Year, based on Steven's request in
comment #41. Unfortunately I lost most of that data directly before posting
it here and couldn't repeat everything, but coincidently
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-06
16:04 ---
All compilers were bootstrapped, with the following flags:
--disable-{nls,checking} --enable-languages=c,c++
Below, gcc40 is CVS HEAD. This was on a 1.6GHz Opteron, with -m32.
The machine has 4GB of
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-06
16:49 ---
Similar numbers on a 1.4GHz Xeon (i686):
gcc32 gcc33 gcc34 gcc40
-O0 18.865s 15.107s 13.286s 10.193s
-O1 33.511s 30.096s 24.693s 23.543s
-O2 46.527s 42.657s 42.618s 33.549s
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-06
16:54 ---
Considering the numbers from #44, #48, and #49, I think we can conclude
that we are back to the compile times GCC 3.0 used to have. It should
be noted that we have a significantly larger memory foot print
--- Additional Comments From ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-06 18:08
---
If you want to compare how the memory footprint has affected performance, use
these flags in 3.3 and later:
--param ggc-min-expand=30 --param ggc-min-heapsize=4096
Those are the hardcoded values that 3.2
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-28
14:48 ---
Can someone do the timings again on x86, I think we are faster at -O1 now than
previous versions and
faster for all other optimization levels?
On ppc-darwin we speed up about 3% (-O2/-O3) to 16% (-O1)
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-28
15:15 ---
I will do timings with a bunch of gcc3.x compilers and gcc4.0.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
--- Additional Comments From belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru
2005-01-16 14:16 ---
here is the timings for i686-pc-linux-gnu:
3.0.5 3.2.3 3.3.6 3.4.4 4.0.0 4.0.0/3.0.5
-O0 24.526.022.420.516.9-31%
-O1 41.848.342.8
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-16
14:21 ---
Please don't close this bug, ever! It's GCC nostalgia. ;-)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-16
04:50 ---
(In reply to comment #39)
Here is the current results for 3.3.2 vs the mainline:
-O0 -O1 -O2 -O3
3.3.2 28.93 42.81 61.1358.140
mainline 11.06
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-10
01:35 ---
I am now getting results which say at -O1, we are now faster than 3.3.2, could
someone test to make
sure that they get close results to mine?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-23
11:16 ---
Gerald, you think you can find some cycles to see where we
stand? I'm very curious how we do for this file, and for
the rest of your test suite.
(It'd be nice if you can compare mainline with some other
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-18
04:13 ---
(In reply to comment #39)
Here is the current results for 3.3.2 vs the mainline:
Now I am getting results that -O3 is faster than -O2, that is not right.
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-04
16:31 ---
Here is the current results for 3.3.2 vs the mainline:
-O0 -O1 -O2 -O3
3.3.2 28.93 42.81 61.1358.140
mainline 11.06 43.18 54.8658.35
--
Bug 8361 depends on bug 18507, which changed state.
Bug 18507 Summary: block_defs_stack varrray should not be GC'ed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18507
What|Old Value |New Value
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-18
18:56 ---
I noticed today that my patch for PR 18507 also helps this testcase.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-12
12:52 ---
GCC 3.4 (CVS today) takes 35s usr on my machine.
GCC 4.0 (CVS today) takes 46s usr on the same machine.
The difference is entirely in DOM, into-SSA and SSA-other
which is really also into-SSA:
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-30 19:30
---
I'm not sure how interesting it is to keep this PR open.
I'll be postponing it every time we get to a release for the forseeable future.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-26 12:34
---
The updated testcase doesn't compile on i686-pc-linux-gnu, with what looks to be
target independent errors. Here are the first few,
/sw/gcc-3.0.4/include/g++-v3/bits/stl_iterator.h:452: error: type/value
--- Additional Comments From gerald at pfeifer dot com 2004-10-26 13:34 ---
Is there anything left to do wrt. the testcases? I saw that Nathan made
some (description-only?) changes.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-26 13:37
---
No, Nathan just got confused on which attachment to take.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
21 matches
Mail list logo
