From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-59587-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 13007 invoked by alias); 3 Sep 2002 20:25:14 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 12999 invoked from network); 3 Sep 2002 20:25:13 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 3 Sep 2002 20:25:13 -0000
Received: by nile.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 338)
	id 4ABABF2D4B; Tue,  3 Sep 2002 16:25:13 -0400 (EDT)
To: dalej@apple.com, dewar@gnat.com
Subject: Re: [GCC 3.x] Performance testing for QA
Cc: Peter.Sasi@t-systems.co.hu, aj@suse.de, gcc@gcc.gnu.org,
	tjw@omnigroup.com
Message-Id: <20020903202513.4ABABF2D4B@nile.gnat.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 13:25:00 -0000
From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)
X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00097.txt.bz2

<<Since the benchmark gcc is never fed any erroneous source while running
the benchmark, none of the error-handling stuff is ever executed.  With
profile-based optimization it's possible to move a lot of that stuff so
it never gets paged in; that's a significant win.  The same conditions
don't apply when running gcc normally, so this is fairly artificial.
>>

Why would it be paged in if it is not executed?