Re: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal

[Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>]

> Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > 
> > > Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > >
> > > >This is precisely what I intend to do now, yes.
> > > >I re-did your experiment on my notebook (Centrino, 256MB ram)
> > >
> > > It's useful to give the exact configuration, in particular the processor
> > > speed. Note that by the way Centrino does NOT designate a processor, but
> > > rather a system including specific wifi support, though it implies the
> > > Pentium-M. That's a very different core than the Pentium-4 or Pentium-4M
> > > so it is useful to repeat such measurements on the latter machines.
> > 
> > My CPU is Pentium-M 1.3Mhz with speedstep disabled, tought it seems to
> > me that only interesting about it is particular CPU core that is mostly
> > Pentium-3 and memory/CPU speed ratio that I unforutnately don't know
> > offhand.
> > 
> 
>   I've started work on tuning gcc to Pentium-M.  It is not a exactly
> Pentium 3 core.  Although it has constraints on insn issue analogous to
> Pentium-pro.  Also it looks like pentium-m has a multiplier from
> pentium-3 too.  Because the frequency processor is quite different from
> pentium4, the memory/CPU speed ratio is also different.

Actually I did other tests posted to the list earlier.  First was about
Gerald's C++ testcase that was done on 1.7Mhz Athlon XP 2100+ and other
was SPEC2000 runs 1.6Mhz Opteron.  Both were consistent with the results
I got there showing speedup relative to GCC 3.0 and 3.3 (hammer branch)
repsectivly.

So I believe that the particular chip has relatively small impact about
the numbers.

I can't access Pentium4 based system.

Honza
> 
> Vlad