This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH 0/6] remove some usage of rtx_{insn,expr}_list
- From: Bernd Schmidt <bschmidt at redhat dot com>
- To: tbsaunde+gcc at tbsaunde dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 18:52:35 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] remove some usage of rtx_{insn,expr}_list
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1466418128-21257-1-git-send-email-tbsaunde+gcc at tbsaunde dot org>
On 06/20/2016 12:22 PM, tbsaunde+gcc@tbsaunde.org wrote:
In theory I would expect if anything this helps performance since it isn't
necessary to malloc every time a node is added, however the data is less clear.
Well, we have alloc pools for these lists, so a malloc is not needed for
every node.
fold const O2 new
real 0m5.034s
user 0m3.408s
sys 0m0.364s
fold const O2 old
real 0m4.012s
user 0m3.420s
sys 0m0.340s
So that's a second more in real time - was the machine very busy at the
time you ran these tests so that these aren't meaningful, or is there a
need to investigate this?
So a couple got about .3s slower, and others got about .1 faster, I'm not
really sure but inclined to say any change is too small to easily measure.
bootstrapped + regtested patches individually on x86_64-linux-gnu, ok?
Modulo the question about compile times I think patches 1-4 are ok, In 5
and 6 I see explicit for loops instead of FOR_EACH macros; I'm curious
as to the reason.
Bernd