This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: recommend use of gperf version 3


On 6/7/05, Bruno Haible <bruno@clisp.org> wrote:
> Hello Ranjit,
> 
> >   They should also be tested with Jacks:
> >
> >   http://gcc.gnu.org/install/test.html#TOC2
> >
> > There *should not* be any regressions, but you never
> > know...
> >
> > I assume that you bootstrapped and tested for regressions
> > after you applied your patch. Were you able to measure any
> > improvements in performance?
> 
> Sorry, I did not do all this (re-bootstrapping, regression-testing, measuring).

I did a rebuild of the Java bits (gcc/java, libjava) once with the
old table and once with the new table (built using gperf-3.0.1
and your command-line options). The build time went
slightly up from 20m 24.850s to 20m 28.315s (~0.2%, that
is noise).

There were no regressions in the testsuite (with Jacks included).


> But I know gperf well enough to be confident in the modified command-line
> options.

I didn't realise you were the co-author of gperf.


> I'm hoping that someone from the GCC developers likes the patch and commits
> it for me, and that the performance change may show up in the automatic
> builds.

Either a global maintainer has to approve it or the
maintainers of the C++ and the Java front-ends have
to approve the respective bits.

Thanks,
Ranjit.

-- 
Ranjit Mathew      Email: rmathew AT gmail DOT com

Bangalore, INDIA.    Web: http://ranjitmathew.hostingzero.com/


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