From: H.J. Lu <hjl@lucon.org>
To: egcs@cygnus.com
Subject: egcs: A new compiler project to merge the existing GCC forks (fwd)
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 03:52:10 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m0x0fih-0004ecC@ocean.lucon.org> (raw)
Forwarded message:
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 11:09:07 +0900
From: Arno PAHLER <paehler@atlas.rc.m-kagaku.co.jp>
Message-Id: <199708190209.LAA04886@atlas.rc.m-kagaku.co.jp>
To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org>
In-reply-to: "H.J. Lu"'s message of Sun, 17 Aug 1997 09:12:40 -0700
Subject: egcs: A new compiler project to merge the existing GCC forks
I downloaded this a few days ago - compiles and runs without any
problems on a PentiumPro Linux 2.0.30 (Redhat 4.2) system - but:
execution speed (floating point) of a test case (mdbench) compiled
with f2c+gcc is about 10% slower than using gcc 2.7.2.1 - it is
about the same or very slighly faster than g77 0.5.19.1 when using
g77 0.5.21 - when using single precision both f2c+gcc and g77 are
about 10-25% slower than their gcc 2.7.2.1/g77 0.5.19.1 counter-
parts.
I had hoped that performance would improve rather than get worse -
is it so hard to optimize for x86? - I am back right now to the old
stuff, unless I get to hear a convincing reason why to switch.
Arno
--
H.J. Lu (hjl@gnu.ai.mit.edu)
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Jeffrey A Law <law@hurl.cygnus.com>
To: egcs@cygnus.com
Subject: Re: egcs: A new compiler project to merge the existing GCC forks (fwd)
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 04:27:02 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m0x0fih-0004ecC@ocean.lucon.org> (raw)
Message-ID: <19970819042702.e2owwM-wkvqvWM_3oB8QTF9gmiGZ4yKsbO1Ele9YAmY@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: egcs: A new compiler project to merge the existing GCC forks (fwd)
HJ, can you work with this person to find out _why_ performance
is suffering?
If nobody takes the time to analyze these problems, then performance
is never going to get significantly better.
In message <m0x0fih-0004ecC@ocean.lucon.org>you write:
> Forwarded message:
> >From paehler@atlas.rc.m-kagaku.co.jp Mon Aug 18 19:09:18 1997
> Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 11:09:07 +0900
> From: Arno PAHLER <paehler@atlas.rc.m-kagaku.co.jp>
> Message-Id: <199708190209.LAA04886@atlas.rc.m-kagaku.co.jp>
> To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org>
> In-reply-to: "H.J. Lu"'s message of Sun, 17 Aug 1997 09:12:40 -0700
> Subject: egcs: A new compiler project to merge the existing GCC forks
>
>
> I downloaded this a few days ago - compiles and runs without any
> problems on a PentiumPro Linux 2.0.30 (Redhat 4.2) system - but:
>
> execution speed (floating point) of a test case (mdbench) compiled
> with f2c+gcc is about 10% slower than using gcc 2.7.2.1 - it is
> about the same or very slighly faster than g77 0.5.19.1 when using
> g77 0.5.21 - when using single precision both f2c+gcc and g77 are
> about 10-25% slower than their gcc 2.7.2.1/g77 0.5.19.1 counter-
> parts.
>
> I had hoped that performance would improve rather than get worse -
> is it so hard to optimize for x86? - I am back right now to the old
> stuff, unless I get to hear a convincing reason why to switch.
>
>
> Arno
>
>
> --
> H.J. Lu (hjl@gnu.ai.mit.edu)
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Jeffrey A Law <law@hurl.cygnus.com>
To: egcs@cygnus.com
Subject: Re: A prototype patch for tree.h/tree.def/calls.c
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 05:08:01 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m0x0fih-0004ecC@ocean.lucon.org> (raw)
Message-ID: <19970819050801.bwQi_y6nP7x6gt185P4bEUvuK--1cLhiDU2L3XZ4BVM@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: A prototype patch for tree.h/tree.def/calls.c
In message <m0x0cfX-0004edC@ocean.lucon.org>you write:
> Hi,
>
> Here is a patch for tree.h/tree.h/calls.c. I hope it will
> be installed soon. Otherwise, it will be very hard to submit
> clean patches. Thanks.
See my comments from your last patch. They apply to this patch
too. If you address those problems I'll install both patchkits.
Jeff
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Oleg Krivosheev <kriol@fnal.gov>
To: egcs@cygnus.com
Subject: Re: egcs: A new compiler project to merge the existing GCC forks (fwd)
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 05:08:01 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m0x0fih-0004ecC@ocean.lucon.org> (raw)
Message-ID: <19970819050801.XXK8jJsYcIZ3qQ9D668JoJ9DvAc_nXh4xd4MNgM0vZM@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 12382.871964822@hurl.cygnus.com
Hi,
On Mon, 18 Aug 1997, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> HJ, can you work with this person to find out _why_ performance
> is suffering?
>
> If nobody takes the time to analyze these problems, then performance
> is never going to get significantly better.
can old scheduler be the source of the problem?
i was able to figure out switch --enable-haifa
only looking into ./configure script. New scheduler
is off by default.
Can someone point me the location of mdbench?
i'll benchmark it...
regards
OK
>
> In message <m0x0fih-0004ecC@ocean.lucon.org>you write:
> > Forwarded message:
> > >From paehler@atlas.rc.m-kagaku.co.jp Mon Aug 18 19:09:18 1997
> > Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 11:09:07 +0900
> > From: Arno PAHLER <paehler@atlas.rc.m-kagaku.co.jp>
> > Message-Id: <199708190209.LAA04886@atlas.rc.m-kagaku.co.jp>
> > To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org>
> > In-reply-to: "H.J. Lu"'s message of Sun, 17 Aug 1997 09:12:40 -0700
> > Subject: egcs: A new compiler project to merge the existing GCC forks
> >
> >
> > I downloaded this a few days ago - compiles and runs without any
> > problems on a PentiumPro Linux 2.0.30 (Redhat 4.2) system - but:
> >
> > execution speed (floating point) of a test case (mdbench) compiled
> > with f2c+gcc is about 10% slower than using gcc 2.7.2.1 - it is
> > about the same or very slighly faster than g77 0.5.19.1 when using
> > g77 0.5.21 - when using single precision both f2c+gcc and g77 are
> > about 10-25% slower than their gcc 2.7.2.1/g77 0.5.19.1 counter-
> > parts.
> >
> > I had hoped that performance would improve rather than get worse -
> > is it so hard to optimize for x86? - I am back right now to the old
> > stuff, unless I get to hear a convincing reason why to switch.
> >
> >
> > Arno
> >
> >
> > --
> > H.J. Lu (hjl@gnu.ai.mit.edu)
>
Oleg Krivosheev,
MS 345, AD/Physics,
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,
P.O.Box 500, Batavia, Illinois, 60510.
phone: (630) 840 8460
FAX : (630) 840 4552
Email: kriol@fnal.gov
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Jeffrey A Law <law@hurl.cygnus.com>
To: egcs@cygnus.com
Subject: Re: egcs: A new compiler project to merge the existing GCC forks (fwd)
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 06:01:28 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m0x0fih-0004ecC@ocean.lucon.org> (raw)
Message-ID: <19970819060128.pP6yqG0Gj0tXEdZy7_ETslyIMOlbo4RPXM3xaJ3T32w@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: egcs: A new compiler project to merge the existing GCC forks (fwd)
In message <Pine.GSO.3.96.970819004905.4653A-100000@drabble>you write:
> can old scheduler be the source of the problem?
Could be -- I don't think gcc-2.7* scheduled instructions on the
x86 machines at all.
So, one interesting test would be to run the benchmark with "-O2",
then again with "-O2 -fno-schedule-insns -fno-schedule-insns2".
That would tell us if we need to focus on the scheduler or not.
seem like haifa could help the pentium pro, however the i386.md
file would have to be tweaked to get the best performance out of
haifa.
Jeff
next reply other threads:[~1997-08-19 3:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1997-08-19 3:52 H.J. Lu [this message]
1997-08-19 4:27 ` Jeffrey A Law
1997-08-19 5:08 ` Oleg Krivosheev
1997-08-19 5:08 ` A prototype patch for tree.h/tree.def/calls.c Jeffrey A Law
1997-08-19 6:01 ` egcs: A new compiler project to merge the existing GCC forks (fwd) Jeffrey A Law
1997-08-19 7:36 Robert Wilhelm
1997-08-19 8:50 Reload patch to improve 386 code Jakub Jelinek
1997-08-19 9:47 ` egcs: A new compiler project to merge the existing GCC forks (fwd) Dave Love
1997-08-19 13:19 H.J. Lu
1997-08-19 17:18 Joern Rennecke
1997-08-19 17:54 Some Haifa scheduler bugs Jeffrey A Law
1997-08-19 17:54 ` egcs: A new compiler project to merge the existing GCC forks (fwd) Dave Love
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=m0x0fih-0004ecC@ocean.lucon.org \
--to=hjl@lucon.org \
--cc=egcs@cygnus.com \
/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).