From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3871 invoked by alias); 3 Sep 2002 21:05:25 -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 3864 invoked from network); 3 Sep 2002 21:05:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO master.atkinson.dhs.org) (68.55.217.208) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 3 Sep 2002 21:05:24 -0000 Received: from kevin-pc.atkinson.dhs.org (kevin-pc.atkinson.dhs.org [192.168.1.3]) by master.atkinson.dhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 379E4BA2F; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 17:05:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 14:05:00 -0000 From: Kevin Atkinson X-X-Sender: kevina@kevin-pc.atkinson.dhs.org To: Robert Dewar Cc: Peter.Sasi@t-systems.co.hu, , , Subject: Re: [GCC 3.x] Performance testing for QA In-Reply-To: <20020903205525.B8861F2941@nile.gnat.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00105.txt.bz2 On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Robert Dewar wrote: > < data movement) should somehow be incorporate as a benchmark test gcc > should optimize for. The ideal goal would be to make the code fast enough > that hand written assembly would not be necessary. Thus using an encoder as > a benchmark would be beneficial. Even if it concentrates on tight loops. > >> > > You need to remember that it is trivial to make a compiler make any ONE > simple program as fast as optimal assembly language. Than you need to use a wide variety of encoders to avoid this problem. Also since the source code for gcc is freely available such a thing will not go unnoticed for long. I seams that you are trying to say that making tight loops run fast is a pointless exercise by the compiler. If a large number of programs tend to use a particular type of loop than optimizing for those loops would be a huge win in terms of performance. --- http://kevin.atkinson.dhs.org