This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Compilation performance comparison of 3.5.0 and TreeSSA trees on MICO sources as requested in: [tree-ssa] Merge status 2004-05-03
- From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- To: Karel Gardas <kgardas at objectsecurity dot com>
- Cc: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>,"gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>,Steven Bosscher <stevenb at suse dot de>, <law at redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 16:21:31 -0400
- Subject: Re: Compilation performance comparison of 3.5.0 and TreeSSA trees on MICO sources as requested in: [tree-ssa] Merge status 2004-05-03
- References: <Pine.LNX.email@example.com>
On May 5, 2004, at 4:12 PM, Karel Gardas wrote:
On Wed, 5 May 2004, Daniel Berlin wrote:Good question.
Note that in almost all of his cases, the parser takes at least 15%,
and usually 30%+ of the time of compilation.
Yes, that's true. Parser and name lookup are most expensive tasks. But
is it possible that trunk is so much (~20%) faster than tree-ssa, when
tree-ssa is based on trunk?
I only mention this because i'm pretty sure that right now, even if we
made gimplification take no time on these testcases, we'd still have a
large percent regression just from the parser times.
Agree, but maybe it just tell something about not so good
tree-ssa branch in comparison with trunk, i.e. trunk optimizes C++
In one case, you are talking about it getting 50% slower. I have a very
hard time believing we are optimizing things that much worse in an
It is also consistent across platforms (IE more than just x86), is it
not (I don't have a 3.5 build handy on this powerbook)?
Is it possible to not bootstrap tree-ssa, but just compile
it by GCC3.4.0/3.5.0 and see if parser is faster? If so, how?
Don't do make bootstrap, just do make
It'll compile gcc with your system compiler