This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: tree-ssa performance
- From: law at redhat dot com
- To: Steven Bosscher <s dot bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>
- Cc: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>, Andrew Macleod <amacleod at redhat dot com>, Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>, Jeff Sturm <jsturm at one-point dot com>, Tim Josling <tej at melbpc dot org dot au>, Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>, gcc mailing list <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 11:16:53 -0600
- Subject: Re: tree-ssa performance
- Reply-to: law at redhat dot com
In message <3EE61064.9030608@student.tudelft.nl>, Steven Bosscher writes:
>Now _that_ is something I can confirm! Until a couple of weeks ago, I
>had a P-II 500Mhz, 192 MB RAM, and a tree-ssa bootstrap with C, C++, and
>G95, checking enabled, took about 7 hours while I was working on that
>machine. I now have a P-II 450 MHz with only 96 MB ram, and I cannot
>even complete a C only bootstrap overnight! :-)
>
>1GB is probably not what the avarage GCC user has, and even 512MB is
>still a lot. I wonder if you ever garbage-collect at all with a machine
>like that!!! Maybe you should try and run the SPEC tester with --param
>gcc-min-{heapsize,expand} to some smaller values that are typical for
>the avarage GCC power-user, see how it compares to mainline then?
FWIW, my main development machine only has 256M :-) Not everyone uses
big iron for development.
jeff