This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: eon performance regression
- From: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- To: Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 15:33:36 +0000
- Subject: Re: eon performance regression
- References: <20020102135446.C6281@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz><3C3316C3.44324286@unitus.it> <u8k7v04vzy.fsf@gromit.moeb><3C332CCE.55954CCB@unitus.it> <u81yh84pem.fsf@gromit.moeb><wvlr8oxccm6.fsf@prospero.cambridge.redhat.com><20020118143317.GA23200@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
>>>>> "Jan" == Jan Hubicka <jh@suse.cz> writes:
>> Any more word on this? Is the regression still present? Have you tested
>> to see whether or not it was due to my patch?
> Andreas had benchmarked reverting your calls.c patch and it causes about 10
> points regression on eon. Interestingly enought there is also some speedup
> in crafty. Can that be caused by your patch?
Not if it's written in C. C never uses TARGET_EXPR.
> Base Compiler: GCC CVS
> Peak Compiler: GCC CVS with patch for calls.c
I assume that "patch for calls.c" means the patch to revert my change.
> Estimated Estimated
> Base Base Base Peak Peak Peak
> Benchmarks Ref Time Run Time Ratio Ref Time Run Time Ratio
> ------------ -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
> 252.eon 1300 217 600 1300 213 611
> 252.eon 1300 216 601* 1300 212 612
> 252.eon 1300 216 601 1300 213 611*
OK, that seems pretty conclusive, thanks. Unfortunately, my patch is
necessary for correctness, so we can't just revert it. I wonder if the
slowdown is simply due to code expansion, or what.
Jason