From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-74629-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 4746 invoked by alias); 19 May 2003 21:02:02 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 4719 invoked from network); 19 May 2003 21:02:01 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO uniton.integrable-solutions.net) (62.212.99.186)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 May 2003 21:02:01 -0000
Received: from uniton.integrable-solutions.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id h4JL1GeR016937;
	Mon, 19 May 2003 23:01:17 +0200
Received: (from gdr@localhost)
	by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id h4JL1GRe016936;
	Mon, 19 May 2003 23:01:16 +0200
X-Authentication-Warning: uniton.integrable-solutions.net: gdr set sender to gdr@integrable-solutions.net using -f
To: Richard Guenther <rguenth@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de>
Cc: Matt Austern <austern@apple.com>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Huge compile time & run time performance regression 3.3 -> HEAD
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0305192238330.464-100000@goofy>
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0305192238330.464-100000@goofy>
Organization: Integrable Solutions
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 21:04:00 -0000
Message-ID: <m3fznaslb7.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg01800.txt.bz2

Richard Guenther <rguenth@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de> writes:

| > Do you see any compile time regressions at -O0?
| >
| > (I'm asking for the obvious reason: trying to find out how much work we
| > need to do in the front end as opposed to the back end.)
| 
| After killing all forced inlining, I get almost the same timings from 3.3
| and 3.4, namely 42.50 and 44.89 seconds.
| 
| Slowdown comes from
| 
| 3.3: name lookup           :   6.92 (17%) usr   0.90 (43%) sys   7.50
| (18%) wall
| 3.4: name lookup           :   9.06 (22%) usr   0.81 (39%) sys  10.29
| (23%) wall

I've also noticed that name lookup time has increased from 3.3 to 3.4,
probably mostly because now we're doing things more correctly and
partly because we didn't really take care to optimize it.  It would be
interesting if you could report numbers for name lookup for 3.4:

  * before I applied the name lookup
  * after I applied it (i.e. cvs as of this moment)

What I've noted (and I posted figures) wkas that the patch I applied
cut the name lookup time about half on mainline, whereas I got at
least 20%  on branch.

Thanks,

-- Gaby