This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: GCC 3.3 compile speed regression - THE GRAPH


On 09-Feb-2003, Joseph S. Myers <jsm28@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> What about -O0 -fsyntax-only?
> And how much worse is 3.3 (with each of the options)?

I don't happen to have 3.3 handy, but I built the current CVS head
(3.4 20030209) yesterday.  Here are the results.

gcc 		2.95.4		-c -O2 ...      		5.53
gcc		2.95.4		-c -O1 ...      		3.19
gcc		2.95.4		-c -O0 ...      		2.65
gcc		2.95.4		-c -O0 -fsyntax-only ...      	1.16

gcc		3.4 20030209 	-c -O2 ...      	       10.16
gcc		3.4 20030209 	-c -O1 ...      		5.10
gcc		3.4 20030209 	-c -O0 ...      		4.03
gcc		3.4 20030209 	-c -O0 -fsyntax-only ...      	0.87

lcc		4.1		-c				1.04

tcc		0.9.16		-c				0.34

There is at least *some* good news: for this benchmark,
`-fsyntax-only' is now 33% faster than it was in 2.95.4!

On the other hand, for `-O0' we've gone from 7.8 times slower than
tcc to 11.8 times slower than tcc -- in other words, just the amount by
which we slowed down since 2.95.4 was itself four times the total that
tcc takes.

-- 
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au>  |  "I have always known that the pursuit
The University of Melbourne         |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>  |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.


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