From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-84236-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 5781 invoked by alias); 18 Oct 2003 14:26:07 -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 5774 invoked from network); 18 Oct 2003 14:26:06 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imf17aec.mail.bellsouth.net) (205.152.59.65)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Oct 2003 14:26:06 -0000
Received: from OARcorp.com ([68.159.134.121])
          by imf17aec.mail.bellsouth.net
          (InterMail vM.5.01.05.27 201-253-122-126-127-20021220) with ESMTP
          id <20031018142606.CQXQ1816.imf17aec.mail.bellsouth.net@OARcorp.com>;
          Sat, 18 Oct 2003 10:26:06 -0400
Message-ID: <3F914D7B.2060803@OARcorp.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 17:51:00 -0000
From: Joel Sherrill <joel.sherrill@OARcorp.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jan Hubicka <jh@suse.cz>
CC: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com>, 
 Lars Gullik Bj?nnes <larsbj@gullik.net>,
  gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Speed issues taken seriously?
References: <m3oewpno6b.fsf@tyfon.gullik.net> <u8r81l8742.fsf@gromit.moeb> <m37k3dnmnx.fsf@tyfon.gullik.net> <m3y8vtm4r3.fsf@tyfon.gullik.net> <m365iqmnii.fsf@tyfon.gullik.net> <Pine.BSF.4.58.0310181221190.66976@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> <20031018110705.GT6212@kam.mff.cuni.cz>
In-Reply-To: <20031018110705.GT6212@kam.mff.cuni.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00791.txt.bz2

Jan Hubicka wrote:

>3.4 seems to be overall somewhat slower than 3.3 again when optimizing
>for sources where inlining does not make important difference.
>I plan to do some oprofiling and analysis of SPEC data we have
>accumulated during stage3 to figure out what are the main reasons for
>this.  (I am experimenting with a tool automatically looking for changes
>of performance in Andrea's SPEC testers and logging changelogs so we at
>least can identify offending patches more easilly.  Very first results
>are at http://www.ucw.cz/~hubicka/analysis.html
>I don't have currently much time to improve my tool but I will try to do
>so after hunting all the bugs in my TODO list.
>  
>
Sounds potentially helpful but the links are broken on the top table.

The size tester that someone has posted information about is also a 
useful metric.

--joel sherrill