This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFC] third liveness pass
- From: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
- To: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>,Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 14:36:49 +0200
- Subject: Re: [RFC] third liveness pass
- References: <Pine.BSF.4.44.0205270825190.44884-100000@naos.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> <Pine.BSF.4.44.0205281143380.70434-100000@naos.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
> On Mon, 27 May 2002, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> >> But interestingly the only C++ benchamrk, eon shows different figures.
> >> The savings are about 2.2% in code size and 1.6% performance (*).
> > Interesting. I wonder if someone with an interest in C++ can
> > corroborate with "real" applications.
>
> I gave it a try yesterday, and there wasn't a significant difference
> overall, and a 0.07% in size increase (though the later might be due
> to an unreleated changed having sneaked in):
Hmm, itneresting. How C++ ized is your benchmark? I was quickly
looking at eon and it appears to do a lot of inline functions and lots
of reuse of single variable for multiple roles. I am not sure whether
this is "normal" C++ source...
Honza