On Sat, 2004-01-17 at 00:52, Per Bothner wrote:
> Diego Novillo wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 2004-01-16 at 22:24, Richard Kenner wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>Remember that the last time we had the discussion of the timing of tree-ssa,
> >>people claimed it was "essential" for 3.5 since there was a tremendous
> >>improvement on some C++ cases.  So let's see those cases.
> >>
> > 
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12747
> 
> Can you give numbers?  I.e. how much faster does that (or a similar)
> testcase run?
>
Sure.  I added some of the missing bits in 12747's test program to make
it executable (attached).  The binary produced by mainline executes in
28.62 seconds.  The one produced by tree-ssa executes in 10.57 seconds
(average over 3 runs).

As with any benchmark, the fact that we do good here cannot be
extrapolated to any other random piece of code.

[ apologies to our C++ experts for butchering the test case. ]


Diego.