From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28245 invoked by alias); 31 Aug 2004 13:47:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 28186 invoked from network); 31 Aug 2004 13:47:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thinkpad.gardas.net) (80.188.250.3) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 31 Aug 2004 13:47:52 -0000 Received: from karel (helo=localhost) by thinkpad.gardas.net with local-esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1C28zE-0001Fx-00; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 15:47:48 +0200 Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 13:57:00 -0000 From: Karel Gardas X-X-Sender: karel@thinkpad.gardas.net To: Steven Bosscher cc: Paolo Bonzini , GCC Mailing List Subject: Re: Compilation performance comparison of gcc3.4.1 and gcc3.5.0 2004-08-30 on MICO sources In-Reply-To: <200408311243.11380.stevenb@suse.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg01622.txt.bz2 On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, Steven Bosscher wrote: > On Tuesday 31 August 2004 12:28, Karel Gardas wrote: > > On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > >>>1) typecode.cc: 40% regression on O1 while 7% speedup on O2 > > > >> > > > >>Can you show us the time report for the 40% regression? > > > > > > Also for 3.4.1? > > > > Sure! > > Hmm... No obvious hot spots eh? > BTW: gcc3.4.1 consumes about 66MB of RAM to compile this file, while trunk consumes about 98MB to compile it and also testing box is pIII mobile with only 256kb cache, so higher memory usage also might add something to the regression... Karel -- Karel Gardas kgardas@objectsecurity.com ObjectSecurity Ltd. http://www.objectsecurity.com