From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5135 invoked by alias); 2 Sep 2004 09:44:22 -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 5112 invoked from network); 2 Sep 2004 09:44:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thinkpad.gardas.net) (80.188.250.3) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 2 Sep 2004 09:44:21 -0000 Received: from karel (helo=localhost) by thinkpad.gardas.net with local-esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1C2o8f-00032s-00; Thu, 02 Sep 2004 11:44:17 +0200 Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 09:44:00 -0000 From: Karel Gardas X-X-Sender: karel@thinkpad.gardas.net To: Giovanni Bajo cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Compilation performance comparison of gcc3.4.1 and gcc3.5.0 2004-08-30 on MICO sources In-Reply-To: <042301c49015$66c3fdd0$bf4e2597@bagio> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00101.txt.bz2 On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, Giovanni Bajo wrote: > Actually, I should also note that at this point we cannot probably do much > about compile time regressions at -O1/2/3. GCC 3.5 features more than 60 new > optimization passes, so it is already a half miracle we don't regress > everywhere. Yes, I'm also surprised that 3.5 looks so good even so much stuff was added. > Code generation is also improved of course, so we have to lose a > little somwhere. Of course, big regressions (>20% on files of non-trivial size) > could probably still analyzed a little to see if we find obvious offenders. > > Thank you for doing this, it is of great help! You are welcome! Now, in the light of observation described in my last email I'm thinking how to mix 3.5.0 with 3.4.1's libstdc++ together to get the best of both in one experimental compiler. :-) Cheers, Karel -- Karel Gardas kgardas@objectsecurity.com ObjectSecurity Ltd. http://www.objectsecurity.com