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: oopack performance

From: Dan Nicolaescu <dann at ics dot uci dot edu>
To: Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 18:27:22 -0700
Subject: Re: oopack performance
References: <200305061329.h46DT498020497@gremlin.ics.uci.edu><20030506093620.B14675@synopsys.com>

Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.com> writes:

  > On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 06:28:54AM -0700, Dan Nicolaescu wrote:
  > > Mainline GCC performs well for the 3 of the 4 oopack benchmarks. 
  > > The only exception is "Complex". 
  > > ...
  > 
  > > The performance can be improved dramatically by just adding a
  > > constructor to the "Complex" class:
  > > 
  > > Complex (const Complex &F) : re(F.re), im(F.im) {}
  > 
  > This is very odd, because that's pretty much the same as the
  > default compiler-generated constructor.  Anyone have any idea
  > why there's so much difference?

I created a PR for this: c++/10741 (http://gcc.gnu.org/PR?10741)

References:
- oopack performance
  - From: Dan Nicolaescu
- Re: oopack performance
  - From: Joe Buck

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