From: "Giovanni Bajo" <giovannibajo@libero.it>
To: "Karel Gardas" <kgardas@objectsecurity.com>
Cc: <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Compilation performance comparison of gcc3.4.1 and gcc3.5.0 2004-08-30 on MICO sources
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 11:18:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <042301c49015$66c3fdd0$bf4e2597@bagio> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.43.0408311045480.1006-100000@thinkpad.gardas.net>
Karel Gardas wrote:
> 1) typecode.cc: 40% regression on O1 while 7% speedup on O2
Can you please file a new bugreport with this -O1 regression, attacching this
preprocessed testcase and the time reports to it? Also link Steven's message in
it: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-08/msg01602.html, which contains the
analysys of this.
Then we can set that the new bug blocks PR 13776.
I think it is better to track these issues with different PRs, and just
connects them to PR 13776 (which is quite confusing at this point) just with
the Bugzilla relationships.
> -O2: 33% basic_seq.cc and following with 27% static.cc
Can you open also a new bugreport about the regression of basic_seq.cc, which
regresses at all optimization levels? Again, attacch preprocessed testcases, a
comparison with 3.4 for all optimization levels, and the relative time reports.
Actually, I should also note that at this point we cannot probably do much
about compile time regressions at -O1/2/3. GCC 3.5 features more than 60 new
optimization passes, so it is already a half miracle we don't regress
everywhere. Code generation is also improved of course, so we have to lose a
little somwhere. Of course, big regressions (>20% on files of non-trivial size)
could probably still analyzed a little to see if we find obvious offenders.
Thank you for doing this, it is of great help!
Giovanni Bajo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-09-01 11:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-08-31 9:58 Karel Gardas
2004-08-31 10:12 ` Steven Bosscher
2004-08-31 10:28 ` Karel Gardas
2004-08-31 10:44 ` Paolo Bonzini
2004-08-31 10:46 ` Karel Gardas
2004-08-31 10:49 ` Steven Bosscher
2004-08-31 11:00 ` Paolo Bonzini
2004-08-31 11:24 ` Steven Bosscher
2004-08-31 19:30 ` Mike Stump
2004-08-31 12:48 ` Karel Gardas
2004-09-01 7:18 ` Paolo Bonzini
2004-08-31 10:55 ` Steven Bosscher
2004-08-31 13:57 ` Karel Gardas
2004-09-01 11:18 ` Giovanni Bajo [this message]
2004-09-02 9:41 ` Karel Gardas
2004-09-02 20:32 ` Compilation performance comparison of gcc3.4.1 and gcc3.5.02004-08-30 " Giovanni Bajo
2004-09-04 7:35 ` Karel Gardas
2004-09-02 9:44 ` Compilation performance comparison of gcc3.4.1 and gcc3.5.0 2004-08-30 " Karel Gardas
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='042301c49015$66c3fdd0$bf4e2597@bagio' \
--to=giovannibajo@libero.it \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=kgardas@objectsecurity.com \
/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).