From: Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz>
To: Steven Bosscher <stevenb@suse.de>
Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>,
gcc@gcc.gnu.org, dberlin@dberlin.org
Subject: Re: GCC 3.5 Status (2004-08-29)
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 15:21:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040830151014.GC22834@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200408300934.13528.stevenb@suse.de>
> On Monday 30 August 2004 02:53, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> > >Hmm, let's argue. So you think 25-100% slowdown is justifyable despite
> > >just about every project using GCC complaining about how GCC gets slower
> > >with each release?
> >
> > Obviously, this is not ideal. However, we have few practical
> > alternatives. I am not convinced that any further delay will get us
> > better results. I do not see a broad committment to improving
> > compile-time speed when optimizing: in fact, I got zero proposals from
> > people planning to work specifically on that issue.
>
> It is funny that you say here that you got zero proposals, yet you
> had a section in your mail:
> > -------------------------
> > Compile-Time Improvements
> > -------------------------
> >
> > There were three submissions relating primarily to compile-time
>
> Also, I believe the edge-vector-branch work is also purely a speedup
> project - it will make looking up PHI arguments much faster. As I
> have shown before on this mailing list, this is one of the major bottle
> necks for passes like DOM.
>
> Merging the LNO ivopts is another pass that could help win back speed
> because it would allow us to kill the old loop optimizer (ie. loop.c
> and unroll.c) and all the yuckie-ness that it causes, like
> reconstructing the CFG, recomputing dominance, recomputing loop info,
> etc. etc. All of that is expensive, and removing expensive things is
> a good thing...
>
> Anyway, you are probably right that there appear to be few people
> working *specifically* on speeding up the compiler. But many people
> work on replacing expensive RTL optimizations with cheaper tree ones.
Also there are are certainly people (at least me ;) who seriously hope
to do some work before the code is frozen, but merging existing work is
a priority. So I wrote only the tasks for whose I have something ready
with hope that I will also manage to figure out how to kill some of
perofmrance/memory problems on the way too. I think number of these can
go to stage3 anyway.
Honza
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-08-30 15:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-08-29 23:49 Mark Mitchell
2004-08-30 0:03 ` Andrew Pinski
2004-08-30 0:33 ` Mark Mitchell
2004-08-30 0:53 ` Daniel Berlin
2004-08-30 0:25 ` Steven Bosscher
2004-08-30 0:48 ` Mark Mitchell
2004-08-30 0:57 ` Steven Bosscher
2004-08-30 1:04 ` Mark Mitchell
2004-08-30 1:12 ` Andrew Pinski
2004-08-30 1:29 ` Mark Mitchell
2004-08-30 10:11 ` Joseph S. Myers
2004-08-30 2:46 ` Giovanni Bajo
2004-08-30 3:09 ` Matt Austern
2004-08-30 13:51 ` Speeding up C++ at -O0 (Was: GCC 3.5 Status (2004-08-29)) Giovanni Bajo
2004-08-30 18:02 ` GCC 3.5 Status (2004-08-29) Joe Buck
2004-08-30 3:32 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2004-08-30 4:11 ` Mark Mitchell
2004-08-30 4:17 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2004-08-30 4:43 ` Mark Mitchell
2004-08-30 5:09 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2004-08-30 5:27 ` Mark Mitchell
2004-08-30 5:30 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2004-08-30 6:57 ` Mark Mitchell
2004-08-30 9:24 ` Steven Bosscher
2004-08-30 10:13 ` Giovanni Bajo
2004-08-30 10:26 ` Steven Bosscher
2004-08-30 16:34 ` Jan Hubicka
2004-08-30 11:02 ` Paolo Bonzini
2004-08-30 10:03 ` Steven Bosscher
2004-08-30 15:11 ` Mark Mitchell
2004-08-30 15:21 ` Jan Hubicka [this message]
2004-08-30 17:46 ` Jeffrey A Law
2004-08-30 1:09 ` Daniel Berlin
2004-08-30 1:53 ` Mark Mitchell
2004-08-30 7:34 ` Steven Bosscher
2004-08-30 8:15 ` Mark Mitchell
2004-08-30 14:16 ` Daniel Berlin
2004-08-30 15:10 ` Mark Mitchell
2004-08-30 3:03 ` Daniel Berlin
2004-08-30 3:20 ` Mark Mitchell
2004-08-31 17:35 ` Joseph S. Myers
2004-08-30 10:50 ` Dorit Naishlos
2004-08-30 15:12 ` Mark Mitchell
2004-08-30 14:26 ` Jan Hubicka
2004-08-30 15:03 ` Mark Mitchell
2004-08-30 15:05 ` Jan Hubicka
2004-08-30 17:08 ` Diego Novillo
2004-08-31 3:25 ` Devang Patel
2004-08-30 0:59 Richard Kenner
2004-08-30 4:33 Nathanael Nerode
2004-08-30 10:17 Richard Kenner
2004-08-30 14:48 ` Mark Mitchell
2004-08-30 18:08 ` Mike Stump
2004-08-30 10:44 Richard Kenner
2004-08-30 11:27 ` Laurent GUERBY
2004-08-30 13:05 ` Jakub Jelinek
2004-08-30 18:28 ` Laurent GUERBY
2004-08-30 20:04 ` Jakub Jelinek
2004-08-30 20:25 ` Laurent GUERBY
2004-08-31 5:27 ` Eric Botcazou
2004-08-31 9:42 ` Arnaud Charlet
2004-08-30 20:14 ` Florian Weimer
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20040830151014.GC22834@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz \
--to=hubicka@ucw.cz \
--cc=dberlin@dberlin.org \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=mark@codesourcery.com \
--cc=stevenb@suse.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).