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]

Re: Compilation performance comparison of gcc3.4.1 and gcc3.5.02004-08-30on MICO sources


Giovanni,

I've created bugreport right now, but I have forgotten to add you to cc
list. Please have a look at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17315 and edit it accordingly,
since I really do not know how to describe this issue better.

Thanks for looking into this!

Karel

On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Giovanni Bajo wrote:

> Karel Gardas wrote:
>
> > Also for basic_seq.cc which should regress on all optimization
> > levels, I now got _no_ regression at all! In fact I got speedups!
> > Look at following table:
> >
> > Not preprocessed file:
> > File 341-O0 350-O0 Delta% 341-O1 350-O1 Delta% 341-O2 350-O2 Delta%
> > basic_seq.cc 3.77 4.21 -10.45 3.98 4.99 -20.24 3.82 5.72 -33.22
> >
> > File preprocessed by GCC 3.4.1:
> > File 341-O0 350-O0 Delta% 341-O1 350-O1 Delta% 341-O2 350-O2 Delta%
> > basic_seq.cc 3.69 3.31 11.48 3.91 3.47 12.68 3.78 3.65 3.56
> >
> > File preprocessed by GCC 3.5.0:
> > File 341-O0 350-O0 Delta% 341-O1 350-O1 Delta% 341-O2 350-O2 Delta%
> > basic_seq.cc 4.61 4.15 11.08 5.28 4.83 9.32 5.62 5.57 0.9
>
> This is very interesting. Can you please file a bug report about this issue?
> You can attacch the unpreprocessed basic_seq.cc, and the two preprocessed
> files, with 3.4.1 and 3.5.0, and include all the timings you did. CC me on it,
> please.
>
> I'll try reproducing these numbers, and check if it's really a problem with v3
> code, or something else.
>
> Thanks again,
> Giovanni Bajo
>
>
>

--
Karel Gardas                  kgardas@objectsecurity.com
ObjectSecurity Ltd.           http://www.objectsecurity.com


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