This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: IRA for GCC 4.4

From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
To: Chris Lattner <clattner at apple dot com>
Cc: "Vladimir N. Makarov" <vmakarov at redhat dot com>, "gcc-patches >> GCC Patches" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:34:34 -0700
Subject: Re: IRA for GCC 4.4
References: <48103C70.4020306@codesourcery.com> <52E4B3F5-9E55-4E20-B67E-2D6B6F655A56@apple.com>

Chris Lattner wrote:

On Apr 24, 2008, at 12:53 AM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
* Ensure that IRA performance on SPEC is no worse than old-RA performance on primary targets. Again, I hope and expect that the target maintainers will work with you to gather data and investigate any issues.
Are there any compile-time performance goals/requirements for this? It would be nice to not take a 40% slowdown at -O0 for example (which is apparently the case currently). What is the acceptable compile-time hit at -O0 and -O3?

We did not explicitly state such goals, but, yes, I would consider a 40% slowdown a pretty serious issue. I'm personally less concerned about -O3, but I would hope that we were in single digits in both cases.

Vladimir, what do you think about that?

Thanks,

--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713

Follow-Ups:
- Re: IRA for GCC 4.4
  - From: Vladimir Makarov

References:
- IRA for GCC 4.4
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- Re: IRA for GCC 4.4
  - From: Chris Lattner

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]