From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-101716-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 26441 invoked by alias); 31 Aug 2004 10:46:02 -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 26429 invoked from network); 31 Aug 2004 10:46:01 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO polimi.it) (131.175.12.8)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 31 Aug 2004 10:46:01 -0000
Received: from gnu.org (paride.rett.polimi.it [131.175.65.135])
	by polimi.it (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id i7VAjxNO015670;
	Tue, 31 Aug 2004 12:46:00 +0200
Message-ID: <413457ED.4090206@gnu.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 11:00:00 -0000
From: Paolo Bonzini <bonzini@gnu.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Steven Bosscher <stevenb@suse.de>,
        Karel Gardas <kgardas@objectsecurity.com>
CC: GCC Mailing List <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Compilation performance comparison of gcc3.4.1 and gcc3.5.0 2004-08-30
 on MICO sources
References: <Pine.LNX.4.43.0408311227330.1006-100000@thinkpad.gardas.net> <200408311234.03764.stevenb@suse.de>
In-Reply-To: <200408311234.03764.stevenb@suse.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-PMX-Version: 4.6.1.107272, Antispam-Core: 4.6.1.106808, Antispam-Data: 2004.8.30.111598
X-PerlMx-Spam: Gauge=%%XPROB%%IIIIIII, Probability=7%, Report='__MOZILLA_MSGID 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __USER_AGENT 0, X_ACCEPT_LANG 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __REFERENCES 0, __IN_REP_TO 0, __EVITE_CTYPE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, REFERENCES 0.000, IN_REP_TO 0, USER_AGENT 0.000'
X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg01606.txt.bz2

> 3.4.1:
> expand                :   0.79 ( 6%) usr   0.03 ( 1%) sys   0.78 ( 5%)
> 
> 3.5.0-HEAD:
> expand                :   2.08 ( 9%) usr   0.07 ( 4%) sys   2.51 (10%) wall


Also:

3.4.1:
integration    :   0.65 ( 5%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.67 ( 4%) wall
global alloc   :   0.91 ( 6%) usr   0.02 ( 1%) sys   0.83 ( 5%) wall

3.5.0-HEAD:
integration    :   1.01 ( 4%) usr   0.06 ( 3%) sys   0.88 ( 3%) wall
global alloc   :   1.16 ( 5%) usr   0.01 ( 1%) sys   1.34 ( 5%) wall

This is overall +0.5 seconds, which another 4%.  And then:

DOM:   1.48 ( 6%) usr   0.02 ( 1%) sys   1.50 ( 6%) wall

There are quite high times for "tree SSA other", "tree conservative 
DCE", "tree SSA rewrite" too.

Note that the parser and name lookup have indeed become faster which is 
the result of Mark's work and part of the reason why -O0 is faster.

The -O2 times for 3.5 would help as well, I suspect -funit-at-a-time is 
helping a lot.

Paolo