From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17715 invoked by alias); 19 Jan 2002 15:54:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 17664 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2002 15:53:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz) (195.113.31.123) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Jan 2002 15:53:59 -0000 Received: (from hubicka@localhost) by atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) id QAA16740; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 16:53:56 +0100 Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 06:04:00 -0000 From: Jan Hubicka To: Jason Merrill Cc: Andreas Jaeger , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: eon performance regression Message-ID: <20020119155356.GH9990@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> References: <20020102135446.C6281@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <3C3316C3.44324286@unitus.it> <3C332CCE.55954CCB@unitus.it> <20020118143317.GA23200@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.24i X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg01334.txt.bz2 > >>>>> "Jan" == Jan Hubicka writes: > > >> Any more word on this? Is the regression still present? Have you tested > >> to see whether or not it was due to my patch? > > > Andreas had benchmarked reverting your calls.c patch and it causes about 10 > > points regression on eon. Interestingly enought there is also some speedup > > in crafty. Can that be caused by your patch? > > Not if it's written in C. C never uses TARGET_EXPR. > > > Base Compiler: GCC CVS > > Peak Compiler: GCC CVS with patch for calls.c > > I assume that "patch for calls.c" means the patch to revert my change. > > > Estimated Estimated > > Base Base Base Peak Peak Peak > > Benchmarks Ref Time Run Time Ratio Ref Time Run Time Ratio > > ------------ -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- > > 252.eon 1300 217 600 1300 213 611 > > 252.eon 1300 216 601* 1300 212 612 > > 252.eon 1300 216 601 1300 213 611* > > OK, that seems pretty conclusive, thanks. Unfortunately, my patch is > necessary for correctness, so we can't just revert it. I wonder if the > slowdown is simply due to code expansion, or what. Code expansion looks like good explanation. Eon is extremly big spageti and almost any code size reducting patch helps the performance here. OK, now it is time to dig out the slowdown before 21st december. Honza > > Jason