From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11917 invoked by alias); 11 Mar 2011 16:00:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 11889 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Mar 2011 16:00:51 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 16:00:44 +0000 Received: (qmail 4061 invoked from network); 11 Mar 2011 16:00:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (froydnj@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 11 Mar 2011 16:00:43 -0000 Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 16:00:00 -0000 From: Nathan Froyd To: Mike Stump Cc: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" , "fortran@gcc.gnu.org" , "java-patches@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: [4.7 PATCH 00/18] slim down a number of tree nodes Message-ID: <20110311160042.GL23686@codesourcery.com> References: <1299817406-16745-1-git-send-email-froydnj@codesourcery.com> <4E164B7A-D67D-494B-A32C-151750483412@comcast.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4E164B7A-D67D-494B-A32C-151750483412@comcast.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) 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: 2011-03/txt/msg00640.txt.bz2 On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 12:18:15AM -0800, Mike Stump wrote: > On Mar 10, 2011, at 8:23 PM, Nathan Froyd wrote: > > This patch series does something similar to what > > I am curious what the speed differences are. A non-rigorous, C-only, release-checking bootstrap (which showed me that I forgot to change the release-checking TREE_TYPE macro, oops!) make -j4 on a lightly-loaded-ish quad-core machine gave these numbers: without patch real 10m8.397s user 33m18.060s sys 2m43.300s with patch real 9m57.203s user 33m12.660s sys 2m44.090s So noise-ish territory. I suppose a more fair comparison would be just the gcc/ directory, and those non-rigorous numbers, from a 'cd gcc && make && time make -j4' post-bootstrap are: without patch gcc/ real 2m41.307s user 8m0.180s sys 0m30.950s with patch gcc/ real 2m35.716s user 7m55.050s sys 0m30.160s Of course, these numbers were only measured once, so they are non-definitive, etc. etc. -Nathan