This is the mail archive of the 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: gcc compile-time performance take 2

Dara Hazeghi <> writes:

> Hello,
> 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.

 Andreas Jaeger
  SuSE Labs

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