From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jan Hubicka To: Brad Lucier Cc: Jan Hubicka , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, rth@cygnus.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Timing information for CFG manipulations Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 14:45:00 -0000 Message-id: <20011016234526.B19140@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> References: <20011016170137.D32633@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <200110161939.f9GJdcb25102@banach.math.purdue.edu> X-SW-Source: 2001-10/msg00931.html > Bootstrapped and regtested on i686-pc-linux-gnu, flow2 is now > > flow 2 : 33.92 (16%) usr 0.10 ( 2%) sys 34.00 (16%) wall > > So, two home runs in one day! (Two goals in one day? ...) Good news. I've planed those two changes for a while, so don't expect another two hours tomorrow :) Just curious, how does the time compare to the older gcc versions? > Each sample counts as 0.01 seconds. > % cumulative self self total > time seconds seconds calls ms/call ms/call name > 16.66 29.10 29.10 72698858 0.00 0.00 bitmap_operation > 12.43 50.81 21.71 13 1670.00 4145.64 calculate_global_regs_live For some purpose, the liveness analyzis by df module appears to work faster than flow.c in non-patological cases (such as combine.c, where flow liveness takes about 5-7%, but df.c in my webyzing pass did take about 1%). I wonder if we can't speed up the flow.c pass considerably. What other functions (except for bitmap_operation) does have more than 10 millions of calls? Do we run into problems with too much RTL traversal or it is purely dominated by the dataflow bitmaps? Honza > 9.86 68.04 17.23 9305997 0.00 0.00 cached_make_edge > 5.57 77.77 9.73 67331 0.14 0.38 try_crossjump_bb > 4.03 84.81 7.04 htab_traverse > 2.99 90.03 5.22 27855 0.19 0.19 sbitmap_intersection_of_su > ccs > > Brad