From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26132 invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2017 16:23:22 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 26120 invoked by uid 89); 24 Oct 2017 16:23:21 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mail-wr0-f176.google.com Received: from mail-wr0-f176.google.com (HELO mail-wr0-f176.google.com) (209.85.128.176) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 16:23:20 +0000 Received: by mail-wr0-f176.google.com with SMTP id 15so7450475wrb.5 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 09:23:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:mail-followup-to:cc:subject:references :date:in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=KH1cSaFIbtpr7GFhpKi0Dg5gm/yMw08JwpWKoPFCCUc=; b=TdBnyvZ4i4gTfdpi7RG9HTu1g2R3v1stJKjF2ZkupX6DQ8URvXajuOfvPCd56TFPcQ fVsL8WH/4GT3o2Dnhl3+kaEnMnzYEl+3bXllNd4xmYqj1J4saYkEMdQyeHG+LqJ8LEGA fi3hOH8Q/l8m3e7bVl3ax7/LwgpziLoJnpQL/Dillrqx4a70S89B7/iwlKObPL45zebz evZ3KBvF910vzfiSpZC26O+LIkLptJm+Yw/fAZjJBCH3WYO5j27BVSiCDRGyjc07vPJP ATDYRRBVOSVdmtOJa3xJ/wjNSa1EAPM2zTaeS0uuOC+PBnwCmXBQaAwnO+FSPe0HVKJG hV9A== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaVdezXZsiidxqorSNXS8OARolNxEypiuPch66IL9KzZXOtoJeZ+ dav52iAEIAqhYD87VVZThBXX9DR2uKE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+Rs41MC82Pa/UIpF2yAvuHZFxrWhPckWvJAQwcOtl01NtsFJlkCzE4AZpdTTIHBbpmjBjSlCA== X-Received: by 10.223.136.51 with SMTP id d48mr11999794wrd.150.1508862198464; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 09:23:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (92.40.248.184.threembb.co.uk. [92.40.248.184]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z35sm768023wrc.9.2017.10.24.09.23.16 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Tue, 24 Oct 2017 09:23:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Richard Sandiford To: Richard Biener Mail-Followup-To: Richard Biener ,GCC Patches , richard.sandiford@linaro.org Cc: GCC Patches Subject: Re: [103/nnn] poly_int: TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS References: <871sltvm7r.fsf@linaro.org> <87fua9damy.fsf@linaro.org> <87she8q3yk.fsf@linaro.org> <87k1zkpze5.fsf@linaro.org> Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 16:24:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Richard Biener's message of "Tue, 24 Oct 2017 13:25:35 +0200") Message-ID: <87zi8go6q4.fsf@linaro.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2017-10/txt/msg01729.txt.bz2 Richard Biener writes: > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Richard Sandiford > wrote: >> Richard Biener writes: >>> Do you have any numbers on the effect of poly-int on compile-times? >>> Esp. for example on stage2 build times when stage1 is -O0 -g "optimized"? >> >> I've just tried that for an x86_64 -j24 build and got: >> >> real: +7% >> user: +8.6% >> >> I don't know how noisy the results are though. > > What's the same on AARCH64 where NUM_POLY_INT_COEFFS is 2? > >> It's compile-time neutral in terms of running a gcc built with >> --enable-checking=release, within a margin of about [-0.1%, 0.1%]. > > I would have expected that (on x86_64). Well, hoped (you basically > stated that in 000/nnn. Sorry, wasn't sure how much of the series you'd had a chance to read. > The question is what is the effect on AARCH64. > As you know we build openSUSE for AARCH64 and build power is limited ;) The timings for an AArch64 stage2-bubble with an -O0 -g stage1, for NUM_POLY_INT_COEFFS==2 is: real: +17% user: +20% Running a gcc built with --enable-checking=release is ~1% slower when using -g and ~2% slower with -O2 -g. Thanks, Richard