This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: gcc compile-time performance take 2
- From: Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>
- To: Dara Hazeghi <dhazeghi at pacbell dot net>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 08:19:28 +0200
- Subject: Re: gcc compile-time performance take 2
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Dara Hazeghi <email@example.com> writes:
> well I had no idea the thread would spark a firestorm of debate (is flamewar
> the correct term?). In any case there are a number of opinions about the
> matter. My point (although it seems to now be submerged in a discussion of
> what is acceptable development hardware) is that things have gotten slower. I
> am not particularly optimistic that gcc 3.2 is going to be faster or equal in
> this respect to gcc 2.95, and I think it is rather unrealistic to think so.
> What I would like to see though, is some method of ensuring that gcc 3.2 is
> not particularly slower, given the same optimizations, than gcc 3.1. To this
> end, I think Andi Kleen's comments are right on the mark.
> So my suggestion (again, as a non-developer, though a frequent user) would be
> to time the SPEC builds. Considering that Andreas Jaeger and Diego Novillo
> are already building and running the benchmarks, it seems that a few tweaks
> to the scripts in question would easily allow one to follow compile-time
> performance on top of run-time performance.
Jan Hubicka asked me last week to do this and yesterday evening I
started enhancing my scripts to visualize:
- the bootstrap time of GCC
- the build time for each SPEC program
Since a complete iteration takes half a day I haven't seen any results
yet - and therefore hadn't planned to publish this yet. I'll look
during the next days in changing all my graphs and fixing the problems
yesterday's work encountered.
SuSE Labs firstname.lastname@example.org