This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] New regressions as of 2003-11-04
- From: law at redhat dot com
- To: Zdenek Dvorak <rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz>
- Cc: Andrew MacLeod <amacleod at redhat dot com>, Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>, gcc mailing list <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 13:53:37 -0700
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] New regressions as of 2003-11-04
- Reply-to: law at redhat dot com
In message <20031110203548.GA17744@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>, Zdenek Dvorak wri
tes:
>Hello,
>
>> >And finally, I already have it done -- see
>> >http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-11/msg00388.html.
>> And have you compared the timings before and after with your patch?
>
>tested compilation of combine.c:
>
>without the patch: TOTAL : 16.62 0.91 17.53
>with the patch: TOTAL : 16.08 0.96 17.04
>
>Before you ask -- yes, the results are consistent; 10 consecutive runs
>without the patch:
Excellent. Thank you.
FWIW, what I do is I keep a .i file for all the gcc source files and
time compiling all of those. It's a slightly broader test than picking
a single source file.
>I will now measure the bootstrap time.
Even better. Thanks.
jeff