Re: gcc compile-time performance take 2

[Dara Hazeghi <dhazeghi at pacbell dot net>]

Andreas Jaeger wrote:

>Dara Hazeghi <dhazeghi@pacbell.net> 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
>

Very good! I hadn't expected quite a quick response. I look forward to 
seeing those graphs! This is the great thing about gcc: you can actually 
see it improving.

>
>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.
>
Not a problem. Thanks again to you and Jan, and keep up the great work!

Dara