This is the mail archive of the 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: [patch][lra] Improve initial program point density in lra-lives.c

On 10/04/2012 12:56 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Vladimir Makarov <> wrote:
0.6% sounds really very different from my timings. How much time does
create_start_finish_chains take for you?

0.65% (2.78s).

Actually, I have a profile but I am not sure now that it is for PR54146.
It might be for PR26854.

I'll check it again to be sure.
Not it looks about the same.
Well, that's very strange. Maybe we measure these things differently?
I just hi-hack a timevar, so I measure e.g. the time spent in
create_start_finish_chains like so:

Index: lra-lives.c
--- lra-lives.c (revision 192052)
+++ lra-lives.c (working copy)
@@ -770,6 +812,7 @@ create_start_finish_chains (void)
    int i, max_regno;
    lra_live_range_t r;

+timevar_push (TV_CPROP);
    lra_start_point_ranges = XCNEWVEC (lra_live_range_t, lra_live_max_point);
    lra_finish_point_ranges = XCNEWVEC (lra_live_range_t, lra_live_max_point);
    max_regno = max_reg_num ();
@@ -783,6 +826,7 @@ create_start_finish_chains (void)
           lra_finish_point_ranges[r->finish] = r;
+timevar_pop (TV_CPROP);


so that I get the timings in the -ftime-report like so:

  CPROP                   :  43.14 ( 4%) usr
  integrated RA           : 200.81 (17%) usr
  LRA non-specific        :  62.18 ( 5%) usr
  LRA virtuals elimination:  61.71 ( 5%) usr
  LRA reload inheritance  :   6.41 ( 1%) usr
  LRA create live ranges  :  139.75 (13%) usr
  LRA hard reg assignment : 130.90 (11%) usr
  LRA coalesce pseudo regs:   2.45 ( 0%) usr
  reload                  :   9.09 ( 1%) usr

"Crude, but efficient" (tm) :-)

How do you measure the time spent in that function, and in

You use AMD and I use Intel. So it may be different with cache point of view.

Another thing is that I used gprof (-pg was used for bitmap.o lra*.o and ira*.o). Your measurements are more accurate, I think, because it is without instrumentation and bitmap.o takes too much time. Bitmap does not work well in this case because they are too big and sparse.

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