This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
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: law at redhat dot com
- To: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- Cc: Karel Gardas <kgardas at objectsecurity dot com>, 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>
- Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 13:08:27 -0600
- 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
- Reply-to: law at redhat dot com
In message <B9CBD5C8-9ECE-11D8-9B55-000A95DA505C@dberlin.org>, Daniel Berlin wr
ites:
>
>On May 5, 2004, at 3:14 PM, Karel Gardas wrote:
>
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>> as you have requested log files of various builds with -ftime-report
>> option used are here: http://mico.org/~karel/logs.tar.bz2. I have also
>> added one build for -O2 -foptions, where -foptions are options
>> suggested
>> by Steven Bosscher and Jeff Law. What surprised me a bit is that there
>> is
>> so big difference between build w/ and w/o -ftime-report option from
>> compilation performance point of view. As such I have also included
>> original logs (w/o -ftime-report) from which I have provided summary
>> table
>> yesterday.
>>
>
>Note that in almost all of his cases, the parser takes at least 15%,
>and usually 30%+ of the time of compilation.
Note that unless things have changed, the parser tends to get everything
which doesn't fall into another bucket. With that in mind, I'd be very
curious if we've got something fairly expensive which isn't side its own
timevar block and thus getting charged to the parser...
jeff