This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org 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] | |
On Apr 2, 2004, at 1:09 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
Hi!
The automatic tester at http://www.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de/~rguenth/gcc/monitor- summary.html
caught a performance regression of the compiled tramp3d-v3 code. It's a 7.43s to 7.64s (per iteration) aka 3% regression.
As this is between a mainline merge I suspect something from there causing
this regression (I don't monitor mainline, maybe I should). Usually
regressins in this test are caused by FP loop pessimizations (as nearly
all time is spent there), and as this is ia64 I suspected
2004-03-29 Fariborz Jahanian <fjahanian@apple.com>
* fold-const.c (fold): Reassociate multiply expression with an adjacent non-multiply expression to use architecture's multiply-add instruction.
to be the cause of the regression, but just reverting the above patch causes another regression to 7.69s - so I'm lost. Diffs of assembly are
From above numbers, it seems to me that above patch is actually helping
performance. It lowers the time to 7.64s which would otherwise have been
7.69s. I don't have access to an ia64 machine but I think investigation should
start with why this benchmark regressed to 7.69s (without above patch).
not helpful, as all non-label differences seem to be complete different compiled routines.
But you may notice the raise in bootstrap time which might (didnt check) be caused by a regression in gengtype which consumes quite a lot of bootstrap time on ia64.
Richard.
-- Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at uni-tuebingen dot de> WWW: http://www.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de/~rguenth/
| Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
|---|---|---|
| Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |