This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Some updates on tree-ssa and PR8361

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> Given that you also report a 1% reduction in the size of the
>> generated binary, I really will try to perform a round of benchmarks
>> this weekend, comparing 2.95, 3.3.2 and mainline against tree-ssa.
> Thanks.  The daily build scripts are now able to build DLV, but we also
> have more RAM now (1Gb).  Low memory machines seem to be getting scarce
> around here :/

Perhaps we should give developers slower machines with less memory? :->

I could not run benchmarks, as tree-ssa currently seems to generate
incorrect code for DLV (or there is a very intricate bug in the single
third party library there, which I can hardly debug), but the time and
memory consumptions for PR8361 are interesting in their own:

                -O2 time[s]    -O3 time[s]/memory[MB]
  3.2.3            50.48           53.64     109 
  3.3.2            51.88           54.50     142
  3.3.3-cvs        51.60           54.35     144
  mainline         63.90           65.77     202
  tree-ssa         52.14           54.59     216

In terms of memory consumption, both mainline and tree-ssa have regressed
by about 50%, though due to the work by Jeff, you, and others, tree-ssa is
now nearly on the level of mainline.

In terms of compilation time, tree-ssa is now on the level of previous 3.x
releases, and in fact faster than mainline.


· Mainline/3.4 has seriously regressed: 20% time, 50% memory.

· tree-ssa has (been) improved significantly, and is more or less on par 
  with mainline.

· In general, we do need to reduce memory consumption (and compile time).


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]