From: Tim Prince <tprince@computer.org>
To: Jan Hubicka <jh@suse.cz>
Cc: Andreas Jaeger <aj@suse.de>, Paolo Carlini <pcarlini@unitus.it>,
Jan Hubicka <jh@suse.cz>,
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Loop unrolling-related SPEC regressions?
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 20:57:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <E16YK9C-0002kC-00@maynard.mail.mindspring.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20020205122938.GO17128@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
On Tuesday 05 February 2002 04:29, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > On Monday 04 February 2002 11:48, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> > > Paolo Carlini <pcarlini@unitus.it> writes:
> > > > Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > >> THe base/peak flags are not supposed to bring best performance,
> > > >> but be good for testing majority of gcc features.
> > > >
> > > > That's really enlightening Honza! Thanks for the clarification.
> > > > We should also remember this when someone compares the SPEC numbers
> > > > made available by other compiler producers with those of GCC: my
> > > > guess is that this kind of rationale for choosing the PEAK flags it's
> > > > unfortunately not so widespread...
> > >
> > > Didn't I mention it that way? Feel free to send a patch for my SPEC
> > > page to clarify what we're doing...
> >
> > Of course, compilers which are sold on the basis of SPEC base performance
> > have different approach to default options than gcc. One expects the
> > base option set to be the one which is the best single setting conforming
> > to the limit on number of options, to obtain the highest rating. Thus, a
> > compiler such as Intel's makes a simple option package such as
> > 'icc -xW -Oi-'
> > roughly equivalent to
> > 'gcc -msse2 -march=pentium4 -Os -funroll-loops
> > -mpreferred-stack-boundary=4 -ffast-math'
>
> I am playing with the idea of making -O behaving like -f and allowing
> -Ospeed "optimize for maximal speed for common circmuatens" and -Osize. We
> can also invent -O[no]debug "prohibit optimizations that make debugging
> dificult, like tail call optimization, frame pointer ellimination, or
> (currently) register renaming", or -Odangerous "enable language standard
> breaking transformations".
I thought that was the meaning of -ffast-math, or do you mean some
combination of optimization which includes -ffast-math and -funroll-loops?
>
> Perhaps that can be usefull not only to "fit in" the spec2000 rules, but
> also to avoid confusion of users. Many benchmarks published uses far from
> "sane" compilation switches.
Yes, there is a need for a simple switch which includes most "sane"
optimizations which are useful for a specified architecture, even if it is
not quite sufficient for a good SPEC score.
>
> Honza
>
> > with even the base rating depending on Profile Guided Optimization.
> > Of course, one expects the peak rating to be found with a set of options
> > which produces the fastest acceptable result for each test, not
> > necessarily the most aggressive group of optimizations. In that light,
> > the SPEC disclosures allow one to speculate as to how much trial and
> > error work was needed to obtain the results submitted, and how much more
> > might be needed to achieve equivalent performance on a typical
> > application.
> >
> > I thank Andreas and Honza for explaining the difference between what they
> > have done and what some of us may have expected.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-02-06 4:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-02-01 10:32 Paolo Carlini
2002-02-01 10:46 ` Richard Henderson
2002-02-01 10:51 ` Paolo Carlini
2002-02-01 10:57 ` Richard Henderson
2002-02-01 11:12 ` Paolo Carlini
2002-02-04 8:37 ` Andreas Jaeger
2002-02-04 9:05 ` Paolo Carlini
2002-02-04 11:15 ` Andreas Jaeger
2002-02-06 0:59 ` Andreas Jaeger
2002-02-06 1:05 ` Paolo Carlini
2002-02-06 1:39 ` Andreas Jaeger
2002-02-06 1:43 ` Paolo Carlini
2002-02-06 1:43 ` Andreas Jaeger
2002-02-06 1:50 ` Andreas Jaeger
2002-02-06 13:08 ` Andreas Jaeger
2002-02-06 14:09 ` Laurent Guerby
2002-02-06 14:45 ` Dale Johannesen
2002-02-06 15:08 ` Andreas Jaeger
2002-02-07 3:59 ` Jan Hubicka
2002-02-07 7:27 ` Michael Matz
2002-02-07 3:48 ` Jan Hubicka
2002-02-07 9:42 ` Richard Henderson
2002-02-06 15:00 ` Andreas Jaeger
2002-02-07 5:22 ` Laurent Guerby
2002-02-07 5:46 ` Cannot allocate 92625564 bytes after allocating 198356992 bytes Dimitri Frederickx
[not found] ` <ho8za5ijlt.fsf@gee.suse.de>
2002-02-07 11:52 ` Loop unrolling-related SPEC regressions? Laurent Guerby
2002-02-01 11:14 ` Joe Buck
2002-02-04 8:45 ` Andreas Jaeger
2002-02-04 10:58 ` Jan Hubicka
2002-02-04 11:07 ` Paolo Carlini
2002-02-04 12:12 ` Andreas Jaeger
2002-02-04 16:36 ` Paolo Carlini
2002-02-04 21:34 ` Tim Prince
2002-02-05 4:32 ` Jan Hubicka
2002-02-05 14:05 ` Geoff Keating
2002-02-06 3:32 ` Jan Hubicka
2002-02-05 20:57 ` Tim Prince [this message]
2002-02-04 11:20 ` Joe Buck
2002-02-04 11:33 ` Jan Hubicka
2002-02-04 11:47 ` Jan Hubicka
2002-02-05 9:59 ` David Edelsohn
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=E16YK9C-0002kC-00@maynard.mail.mindspring.net \
--to=tprince@computer.org \
--cc=aj@suse.de \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jh@suse.cz \
--cc=pcarlini@unitus.it \
/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).