This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] New regressions as of 2003-11-04
- From: Zdenek Dvorak <rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz>
- To: law at redhat dot com
- Cc: Andrew MacLeod <amacleod at redhat dot com>, Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>,Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>,Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>,gcc mailing list <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 21:35:48 +0100
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] New regressions as of 2003-11-04
- References: <20031110190205.GA8754@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <200311101909.hAAJ9236019314@speedy.slc.redhat.com>
Hello,
> >And finally, I already have it done -- see
> >http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-11/msg00388.html.
> And have you compared the timings before and after with your patch?
tested compilation of combine.c:
without the patch: TOTAL : 16.62 0.91 17.53
with the patch: TOTAL : 16.08 0.96 17.04
Before you ask -- yes, the results are consistent; 10 consecutive runs
without the patch:
165.24user 7.23system 2:53.10elapsed 99%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (12098major+135887minor)pagefaults 0swaps
with the patch:
160.66user 12.93system 2:53.58elapsed 100%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (12108major+149297minor)pagefaults 0swaps
I will now measure the bootstrap time.
Zdenek