From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6188 invoked by alias); 12 Sep 2009 20:18:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 6179 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Sep 2009 20:18:37 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from an-out-0708.google.com (HELO an-out-0708.google.com) (209.85.132.250) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:18:33 +0000 Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id d14so764169and.3 for ; Sat, 12 Sep 2009 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.101.26.26 with SMTP id d26mr4966476anj.9.1252786711960; Sat, 12 Sep 2009 13:18:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gmail.com (adsl-71-146-28-171.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net [71.146.28.171]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 23sm1727311yxe.8.2009.09.12.13.18.28 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 12 Sep 2009 13:18:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:18:00 -0000 From: Khem Raj To: Martin Guy Cc: "ng@piments.com" , H Hartley Sweeten , crossgcc@sourceware.org Subject: Re: crosstool-ng: cross compiler for -mach=arm4vt (Cirrus Logic EP93xx target) Message-ID: <20090912201825.GB10819@gmail.com> References: <56d259a00909090401i42a852e4g3764219d8a597ae5@mail.gmail.com> <56d259a00909111233n6fc9e643pbed1fe850c220e07@mail.gmail.com> <4AAAC7CA.3050605@piments.com> <56d259a00909111520k671f2dfbja8f8ab2d2e6c2c94@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56d259a00909111520k671f2dfbja8f8ab2d2e6c2c94@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact crossgcc-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: crossgcc-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-09/txt/msg00052.txt.bz2 On (11/09/09 23:20), Martin Guy wrote: > On 9/11/09, ng@piments.com wrote: > > I see you're posting patch sets for 4.2 and 4.3. I recall you said > > somewhere that 4.2.x produced faster ARM code. Is that still your > > experience? > > THere's some extra measurements I didn't post there: using differen > GCCs to compile gcc-4.3.4, and measuring the size of the different > GCCs themselves and the size of the object code they generate and the > maximum memory they use to do it (compiling insn_recog.c as a rule): > > --the compiler itself-- --on gcc-4.3.2 stage1-- > Version gcc cc1 cc1 Elapsed Max VM xgcc > text text data time used text > gcc-3.4 79579 3862155 3236 4m30 104128 209509 > gcc-4.0 86429 4579965 10208 4m44 111104 225846 > gcc-4.1 193369 5115620 15976 4m56 123264 226469 > gcc-4.2 188582 5490547 17364 4m50 112128 221171 > gcc-4.3 203918* 7010746 420820 6m41 157440 227755 > gcc-4.4 202989* 9431805 546128 8m21 170550 249260 > llvm4.2 189365 4m56 67136 236957 Did you compile exact same insn_recog.c source ? if not then you are comparing apples to pineapples. -Khem > > so 4.2 shows an unexpected dip in its own size, its memory use, the > time it takes to run and the size of its output code. > (Maybe it was just gathering its strength for the exponential growth > from 4.3 onwards :) > > M > > -- > For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq > -- For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq