This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Some updates on tree-ssa and PR8361
- From: Gerald Pfeifer <gp at suse dot de>
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
- Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 22:20:21 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: Some updates on tree-ssa and PR8361
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0401092242100.16074@D209.suse.de><email@example.com>
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
· In general, we do need to reduce memory consumption (and compile time).