This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [4.7 PATCH 00/18] slim down a number of tree nodes
- From: Nathan Froyd <froydnj at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>
- Cc: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org" <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 08:00:42 -0800
- Subject: Re: [4.7 PATCH 00/18] slim down a number of tree nodes
- References: <1299817406-16745-1-git-send-email-froydnj@codesourcery.com> <4E164B7A-D67D-494B-A32C-151750483412@comcast.net>
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 12:18:15AM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Mar 10, 2011, at 8:23 PM, Nathan Froyd <froydnj@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> > This patch series does something similar to what
>
> I am curious what the speed differences are.
A non-rigorous, C-only, release-checking bootstrap (which showed me that
I forgot to change the release-checking TREE_TYPE macro, oops!) make -j4
on a lightly-loaded-ish quad-core machine gave these numbers:
without patch
real 10m8.397s
user 33m18.060s
sys 2m43.300s
with patch
real 9m57.203s
user 33m12.660s
sys 2m44.090s
So noise-ish territory. I suppose a more fair comparison would be just
the gcc/ directory, and those non-rigorous numbers, from a 'cd gcc &&
make && time make -j4' post-bootstrap are:
without patch gcc/
real 2m41.307s
user 8m0.180s
sys 0m30.950s
with patch gcc/
real 2m35.716s
user 7m55.050s
sys 0m30.160s
Of course, these numbers were only measured once, so they are
non-definitive, etc. etc.
-Nathan