This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Speed issues taken seriously?
> email@example.com (Lars Gullik Bj?nnes) writes:
> | Andreas Jaeger <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> | | email@example.com (Lars Gullik Bj?nnes) writes:
> >>> I just thought that I'd see how gcc 3.3.2 (CVS) and 3.4(CVS) compared,
> >>> I was hoping (expecting) the recent months long threads on compile
> >>> performance to have had an effect... the result was a bit
> >>> disappointing...
> | | How did you configure GCC exactly? Please use --disable-checking so
> | | that the checking code is disabled, it causes some run-time overhead.
> | I'll redo my tests with this.
> Test redone.
> g++ (GCC) 3.4 20031010 (experimental)
> real 24m20.049s
> user 22m17.930s
> sys 1m45.420s
> ls -l src/lyx-xforms src/lyx-qt
> -rwxrwxr-x 1 larsbj larsbj 5837084 Oct 10 18:18 src/lyx-qt
> -rwxrwxr-x 1 larsbj larsbj 5513413 Oct 10 18:18 src/lyx-xforms
> size src/lyx-xforms src/lyx-qt
> text data bss dec hex filename
> 3907253 18948 53660 3979861 3cba55 src/lyx-xforms
> 4088833 17180 28732 4134745 3f1759 src/lyx-qt
> So a lot better, but still a bit disappointing, since the compilation
> time is still increasing.
Can you, please, try to test it with --param max-inline-insns-single=100
It is quite interesting that code size has increased so much. I
recently increased the limit form 100 to 500 and we probably should go
for something in between (as SPEC scores has regressed somewhat too at
least in combination of loop unrolling)
> PS. Gcc configured like this:
> ../configure --prefix=/opt/gcc34 --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-checking