From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28317 invoked by alias); 9 Jun 2010 18:58:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 28303 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Jun 2010 18:58:58 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from ksp.mff.cuni.cz (HELO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz) (195.113.26.206) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 09 Jun 2010 18:58:53 +0000 Received: by atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz (Postfix, from userid 4018) id 7656EF0B9E; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 20:58:51 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 19:11:00 -0000 From: Jan Hubicka To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Jan Hubicka , Laurynas Biveinis , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, rguenther@suse.de Subject: Re: Make gimple.h checks conditional with ENABLE_GIMPLE_CHECKING Message-ID: <20100609185851.GA15748@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> References: <20100608225711.GA15770@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <4C0F63E6.4020709@gnu.org> <4C0F65FD.6070408@gnu.org> <20100609102252.GB16075@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <4C0F70B2.1030708@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4C0F70B2.1030708@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-06/txt/msg00987.txt.bz2 > On 06/09/2010 12:22 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote: >> It is still possible that the change imporoved compilation time, just caused >> slowdown due to different inlining decisions or so. > > Yeah, if the compiler has more work to do that would slow down the > build. And it makes sense to have more inlining after your patch. > > > This seems to be supported by SPEC benchmarking >> http://gcc.opensuse.org/SPEC/CINT/sb-barbella.suse.de-ai-64/times.html we >> definitly have some improvements over in last few days on build times of pretty >> much all benchmarks, still bootstrap is getting slower. Lets see how things >> change with next run after the branch merge. > > Agreed. Today results seems to support the theory. There are some nice off-noise speedups but bootstrap time is not improved (it seems worse than before). Other possibility is that also removing the asserts makes gcc to optimize itself harder (i.e. do more inlining and prove more functions pure) Honza > > paolo