From: Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org>
To: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner)
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Patch to allow Ada to work with tree-ssa
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 20:47:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m2659jfluj.fsf@greed.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <10406221853.AA08995@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) writes:
> Both have increased by a factor of between 21 and 22 in 5742 days. A
> 1% increase every 18 days suffices to explain this. What we do at -O0
> should not be 20 times as complicated as what GCC 1.27 did at -O0.
>
> Although I'm not arguing in favor of wasting memory, it's also imporant to
> look at the typical amounts of memory available at each of those times
> and see how it has increased as well.
This is a classic example of triple-counting.
Yes, main memory capacity has increased. However, it is relatively
much slower compared to CPU speed, so the true comparison now is
between DRAM ten years ago and L2 cache now, which *isn't* much
larger. In addition, programs have gotten larger, which soaks up much
of the CPU speed improvement.
Right now, one of the determining factors of GCC's speed is the number
of L2 cache misses it makes. GCC spends much of its time waiting for
main memory. It's like a machine ten years ago which was continuously
swapping.
> I'm also not sure that -O0 is
> a good comparison point because the amount of data we keep is related
> to optimization issues and there's little motivation for have two
> different data structures and use one for optimized and the other for
> unoptimized code.
-O0 is the case that users care most about, because that's what they
use when they're in the edit-compile-debug cycle.
I don't believe you can compare -O2 between the two compilers and get
better results, though. In fact, I think -O2 is relatively even slower.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-06-23 18:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 77+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-06-22 20:23 Richard Kenner
2004-06-22 20:37 ` Joseph S. Myers
2004-06-23 20:47 ` Geoffrey Keating [this message]
2004-06-24 14:59 ` Joseph S. Myers
2004-06-24 16:26 ` Richard Earnshaw
2004-06-24 19:57 ` Laurent GUERBY
2004-06-24 20:06 ` Diego Novillo
2004-06-24 20:24 ` Andrew Pinski
2004-06-24 22:35 ` Laurent GUERBY
2004-06-24 21:33 ` Laurent GUERBY
2004-06-24 21:01 ` Joseph S. Myers
2004-06-25 14:51 ` Richard Earnshaw
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-07-29 19:02 Richard Kenner
2004-07-29 18:43 Richard Kenner
2004-07-29 17:12 Richard Kenner
2004-07-29 17:13 ` Diego Novillo
2004-07-29 17:57 ` Richard Henderson
2004-06-25 15:28 Richard Kenner
2004-06-28 15:09 ` Paolo Bonzini
2004-06-24 15:58 Richard Kenner
2004-06-24 16:04 ` Nathan Sidwell
2004-06-25 14:43 ` Joseph S. Myers
2004-06-23 5:54 Richard Kenner
2004-06-23 2:32 Richard Kenner
2004-06-23 4:54 ` Bryce McKinlay
2004-06-23 0:16 Richard Kenner
2004-06-22 23:05 Richard Kenner
2004-06-23 11:42 ` Nathan Sidwell
2004-06-22 22:18 Richard Kenner
2004-06-23 1:07 ` Richard Henderson
2004-06-22 21:30 Richard Kenner
2004-06-22 22:04 ` Paul Brook
2004-06-22 21:27 Richard Kenner
2004-06-22 21:29 ` Mark Mitchell
2004-06-22 21:10 Richard Kenner
2004-06-22 21:12 ` Mark Mitchell
2004-06-22 22:16 ` Daniel Berlin
2004-06-22 21:07 Richard Kenner
2004-06-22 21:12 ` Bryce McKinlay
2004-06-22 21:05 Richard Kenner
2004-06-22 21:01 Richard Kenner
2004-06-22 20:54 Richard Kenner
2004-06-22 21:06 ` Paul Brook
2004-06-22 21:37 ` Richard Henderson
2004-06-22 20:44 Richard Kenner
2004-06-22 21:03 ` Mark Mitchell
2004-06-23 20:58 ` Geoffrey Keating
2004-06-22 20:40 Richard Kenner
2004-06-22 22:02 ` Nathan Sidwell
2004-06-22 22:27 ` Joseph S. Myers
2004-06-22 20:22 Richard Kenner
2004-06-22 20:30 ` Mark Mitchell
2004-06-22 19:05 Richard Kenner
2004-06-22 20:10 ` Joseph S. Myers
2004-06-22 20:27 ` Andrew Haley
[not found] <10406221359.AA05860@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
2004-06-22 18:47 ` Richard Henderson
2004-06-22 18:33 Richard Kenner
2004-06-22 18:19 Richard Kenner
2004-06-22 18:36 ` Nathan Sidwell
2004-06-22 18:37 ` Nathan Sidwell
2004-06-22 18:45 ` Mark Mitchell
2004-06-22 17:05 Richard Kenner
2004-06-22 17:21 ` Andrew Haley
2004-06-22 19:01 ` Richard Henderson
2004-06-22 16:34 Richard Kenner
2004-06-22 16:33 Richard Kenner
2004-06-22 17:46 ` Mark Mitchell
2004-06-22 18:17 ` Joseph S. Myers
2004-06-22 18:52 ` Richard Henderson
2004-06-22 19:37 ` Zack Weinberg
2004-06-22 7:05 Richard Kenner
2004-06-22 7:29 ` Mark Mitchell
2004-06-22 9:14 ` Andrew Pinski
2004-06-22 14:16 ` Andrew Haley
2004-06-22 11:00 ` Richard Henderson
2004-06-22 13:52 ` Ranjit Mathew
2004-07-29 17:02 ` Diego Novillo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=m2659jfluj.fsf@greed.local \
--to=geoffk@geoffk.org \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).