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: [lto] preliminary SPECint benchmark numbers



On Dec 25, 2007, at 5:02 PM, Vladimir N. Makarov wrote:


Here is mine benchmarking of the current LTO branch on 2.66Ghz Core2
under RHEL 5 in 64- and 32-bits mode.  The vortex violates type
aliasing rules, therefore it should be compiled with
-fno-strict-aliasing.  Perlbmk crashed in tree.c::build2_stat in
32-bits mode when LTO used.  LTO currently generates wrong code for
176.gcc.  I've also checked Specfp2000 benchmarks written in C.

In brief,

o the code size (text segment) with LTO is much smaller (2.7% and
2.4% for SpecInt and 0.16% and 0.6% for SpecFp correspondingly in 64-
and 32-bit mode). That is very promising.
o the compilation is 2 times slower with LTO.
o The generated code is slower 3.6% and 2.2% for SPECint2000 and
SpecFp2000 in 64-bit mode. It is also 6.7% slower for SpecInt2000 in
32-bit mode. But SpecFp2000 in 32-bit mode code generated with LTO
is 20% faster! It is because art is almost 2.5 times faster with
LTO.

Wow, nice numbers! Is it possible to compare this to -combine, or does -combine work anymore? In theory, lto and IMA should yield the same codegen, lto should just be usable with normal makefiles.


-Chris


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