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 GCC 3.4.2 and GCC 4.0.0(041024) on MICO sources

From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
To: Steven Bosscher <stevenb at suse dot de>
Cc: Karel Gardas <kgardas at objectsecurity dot com>, GCC Mailing List <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:13:32 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Compilation performance comparison of GCC 3.4.2 and GCC 4.0.0(041024) on MICO sources
References: <Pine.LNX.4.43.0410251322000.742-100000@thinkpad.gardas.net><200410251635.58406.stevenb@suse.de>

My bet: GC allocating lots and lots of bitmaps :-/

Probably.

Here's the interesting question:
If these bitmaps live over compilation, and we know exactly when they die
(cgraph_reset_static_var_maps), why the heck are they gc allocated?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Compilation performance comparison of GCC 3.4.2 and GCC 4.0.0(041024) on MICO sources
  - From: Karel Gardas
- Re: Compilation performance comparison of GCC 3.4.2 and GCC 4.0.0 (041024) on MICO sources
  - From: Jan Hubicka

References:
- Compilation performance comparison of GCC 3.4.2 and GCC 4.0.0 (041024)on MICO sources
  - From: Karel Gardas
- Re: Compilation performance comparison of GCC 3.4.2 and GCC 4.0.0 (041024) on MICO sources
  - From: Steven Bosscher

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