Re: PATCH: [gcc3.5 improvement branch] Very Simple constant propagation

[Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>]

On Jan 22, 2004, at 17:46, Andrew Pinski wrote:

> On Jan 22, 2004, at 15:06, Caroline Tice wrote:
>
> > Hi Roger,
> >
> > I've been playing around with your patch and comparing it to mine, 
> > with the following
> > results.
>
> > Benchmark        My Patch          Your Patch
> >
> > gzip                6.65            12.74
> > vpr                20.83            36.98
> > gcc               244.13           399.41
> > mcf                 1.75             3.28
> > crafty             31.95            61.89
> > parser             15.61            31.29

I was asked by Caroline to do some timings for both of these patches as 
a semi-third party.
Here are my results.

Here are the results from my machine (a PPC G4 800MHz laptop running 
Mac OS X 10.3.2 aka
darwin7.2.0), I can also do an x86 box running Linux also if need be.  
All sources were
from "Tue Feb  3 19:34:23 UTC 2004" except for 3.3.3 was from 20040201.

I only did one IMO because the SPEC benchmarks are not really C 
complaint and I do not
have a patch to ignore the difference in function prototypes.

Benchmark       Without   Caroline    Roger     3.3.3 (for reference)
crafty          61.59     62.310      62.250
mcf (with IMO)  3.260     3.290       3.340     2.570 (not with IMO)
fold-const.i    94.55     96.070      95.300    67.590
  targeting PPC64 from June

What I can conclude from this is that their patches are almost equally 
in compile time but
Caroline's can cause memory overhead to go up which we consider bad as 
there was just a
reduction of memory usage on the mainline done by Jan Hubicka.  Also 
the compile time has
regressed from 3.3.3 but which is already a PR 13987; this is mostly 
because of a patch
by me to fully support -mpowerpc64 on Darwin as HOST_WIDE_INT needs to 
be 64bit now.  This
might also explain what Caroline did wrong in her testings as it looks 
like she did not use
the same source tree for both patches but used one where HOST_WIDE_INT 
was 32bit for hers
while 64bit for Roger's which causes this compile time regression.


Thanks,
Andrew Pinski