From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16380 invoked by alias); 3 Sep 2002 21:28:36 -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 16363 invoked from network); 3 Sep 2002 21:28:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kampanus.ms.mff.cuni.cz) (195.113.18.107) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 3 Sep 2002 21:28:35 -0000 Received: by kampanus.ms.mff.cuni.cz (Postfix, from userid 16202) id 71224433C9; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 23:28:32 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 14:28:00 -0000 From: Jan Hubicka To: Robert Dewar , dalej@apple.com, Peter.Sasi@t-systems.co.hu, aj@suse.de, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, tjw@omnigroup.com Subject: Re: [GCC 3.x] Performance testing for QA Message-ID: <20020903212832.GE10909@kam.mff.cuni.cz> References: <20020903202513.4ABABF2D4B@nile.gnat.com> <20020903203012.GA10309@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020903203012.GA10309@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00111.txt.bz2 > On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 04:25:13PM -0400, Robert Dewar wrote: > > < > 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? > > If it's on the same page as something which is executed. This is one > of the major benefits of profile-driven optimization. Right :) BTW I was experimenting with patching makefiles to use GCC profile feedback when building GCC. The resulting compiler is about 7% faster to build binutils then. Honza > > -- > Daniel Jacobowitz > MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer