This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Proposal on how to study g++ compile-time regression and progression since 2.95.2 and initial analysis
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Subject: Re: Proposal on how to study g++ compile-time regression and progression since 2.95.2 and initial analysis
- From: Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:47:56 -0800 (PST)
- cc: libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
> I propose two possible representative sources and give current results
> for a Secondary Evaluation Platform. I think it is quite important to
> break this study into two parts: header processing speed (since some
> C++ projects are clearly dominated by many small source files each
> implementing a small part of a total program or library) and code
> generation speed (since some C++ projects are clearly dominated by
> template crunching and other heavy lifting, etc).
...you also reference memory used, which is a third part, and one that is
also important. Plus runtime performance. I don't see why all four items
shouldn't be considered.
> 1. Proposed C++ test one studies the time/memory to process an
> extended, but typical and standard, set of header files and is
> generated as follows (note: we preprocess with the 3.0 release
> $srcdir/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/17_intro/headers.cc | \
Ha. This is really not a fair comparison, but it is a good test.
> 2. Proposed C++ test two studies time/memory to produce object code
> from C++ code instead of focusing on header processing speed as in C++
> test one. Any large body of representative C++ code that uses no or
> few standard headers could work for this test. stepanov_v1p2.C would
> appear to be too small. POOMA would appear to fit the bill especially
> since it is already being used as a real-world regression test for
> gcc3.
seems like a good choice
-benjamin