From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11635 invoked by alias); 19 Jan 2004 19:10:18 -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 11623 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2004 19:10:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kraid.nerim.net) (62.4.16.101) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Jan 2004 19:10:14 -0000 Received: from tetto.gentiane.org (espie.gentiane.org [62.212.102.210]) by kraid.nerim.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F393941349; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:51:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from tetto.gentiane.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tetto.gentiane.org (8.12.9/8.12.1) with ESMTP id i0JIp0lM022692; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:51:01 +0100 (CET) Received: (from espie@localhost) by tetto.gentiane.org (8.12.9/8.12.1/Submit) id i0JIoxmt023213; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:50:59 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:10:00 -0000 From: Marc Espie To: Jan Hubicka Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal Message-ID: <20040119185057.GA6787@tetto.gentiane.org> Reply-To: espie@nerim.net References: <82D6F34E-4306-11D8-BDBD-000A95B1F520@apple.com> <20040110154129.GA28152@disaster.jaj.com> <1073935323.3458.42.camel@minax.codesourcery.com> <1073951351.3458.162.camel@minax.codesourcery.com> <20040119034216.0593F48A4@quatramaran.ens.fr> <200401190349.i0J3nUT22886@makai.watson.ibm.com> <20040119132847.GA16721@tetto.gentiane.org> <20040119133501.GJ31365@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040119133501.GJ31365@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01352.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 02:35:01PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 10:49:30PM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote: > > > > > Did you build head configured with --disable-checking? > > > > Rebuilt with --disable-checking, and double-checked the options. There > > was a bug that meant I was not -O2 in both cases. > > > > Now, the actual options are > > -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes > > -Wno-uninitialized -Wno-format -Wno-main -fno-builtin-printf > > -fno-builtin-log -fno-builtin-malloc -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing > > in both cases. > > > > And it's still a bit slower: > > > > gcc 3.3.2: > > 527.98s real 421.02s user 30.36s system > > > > gcc -head with --disable-checking: > > 544.91s real 439.52s user 30.27s system > > > > > > Okay, the slow-down is not as marked as with --enable-checking, but it > > still does exist: 4% is something. > > You may consider using profiledbootstrap. It makes bootstrap slower, > but it pays back in compilation time later. > 2 hours of whole build may already make it pay back. In fact I would be > extremly curious about that. Yep, profiledbootstrap is very, very slow, but the results are a little encouraging: 515.03s real 389.54s user 30.42s system So, it is slightly faster than 3.3.2... I'll try doing some profiling for you guys, and building a complete archive that you can experiment with. Now, for the killer question: assuming the OpenBSD project, at some point, moves to a recent gcc, we might want to have profile-directed compilation, but we definitely can't afford to run a full profiledbootstrap each time. Is the format of profile information such that, say, it could be stored in arch-dependent directories, and then used for the compilation ? I'm asking this, because I had to kill one profiledbootstrap, and when I tried to resume it, it didn't work and told me I had used the wrong options.