public inbox for gcc@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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


  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).