From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19643 invoked by alias); 21 Apr 2010 18:10:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 19586 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Apr 2010 18:10:20 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 18:10:11 +0000 Received: from int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.18]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o3LIA7fP009421 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 21 Apr 2010 14:10:07 -0400 Received: from toll.yyz.redhat.com (toll.yyz.redhat.com [10.15.16.165]) by int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o3LIA6Df014637; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 14:10:06 -0400 Message-ID: <4BCF3FCD.4010203@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 18:19:00 -0000 From: Vladimir Makarov User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090825) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chris Lattner CC: Duncan Sands , Steven Bosscher , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Some benchmark comparison of gcc4.5 and dragonegg (was dragonegg in FSF gcc?) References: <20100409163655.GA25781@bromo.med.uc.edu> <4BBF5B7C.7060801@starynkevitch.net> <4BC07718.3060400@free.fr> <4BC1D647.60902@free.fr> <4BCF2D93.1050709@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-04/txt/msg00473.txt.bz2 Chris Lattner wrote: > On Apr 21, 2010, at 9:53 AM, Vladimir Makarov wrote: > > >> Only SPECIn2000 for x86_64 has been compiled fully successfully by >> dragonegg. There were a few compiler crashes including some in LLVM >> itself for SPECFP2000 and for SPECINT2000 for x86. >> >> So here is SPECInt2000 for x86_64 comparison: >> >> dragonegg: -O3 (with LLVM release build) >> gcc4.5: -O3 -flto (--enable-checking=release) >> >> Compilation Time SPECINT2000 >> Dragonegg 122.85user 2572 >> gcc-4.5 283.49user 2841 >> >> On integer benchmarks, dragonegg generates about 11% slower code. >> One interesting thing is that dragonegg is a really fast compiler. It >> is 2.3 times faster than gcc. >> > > This is definitely interesting, but you're also comparing apples and oranges here (for both compile time and performance). Can you get numbers showing GCC -O3 and dragonegg with LTO to get a better comparison? > > Dragonegg does not work with -flto. It generates assembler code on which gas complaints (a lot of non-assembler code like target data-layout which are not in comments). So I'll do gcc -O3 without -flto. I don't think it will change average SPECINT2000 rate significantly (although it can change separte benchmark significantly) but it will make gcc compiler much faster (may be 2 times because I did not use -fwhole-program). I'll post the results in an hour.