This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Temporarily enable ac_fold_checking for --enable-checking=yes.

From: "Sebastian Pop" <sebpop at gmail dot com>
To: "Kaveh R. GHAZI" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>
Cc: "Uros Bizjak" <ubizjak at gmail dot com>, "GCC Patches" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 17:31:17 +0200
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Temporarily enable ac_fold_checking for --enable-checking=yes.
References: <467AF510.3010907@gmail.com> <cb9d34b20706211533w1fb02383vefb73f056eb9edbe@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.GSO.4.58.0706221139350.29328@caipclassic.rutgers.edu>

Here are more numbers from my laptop i686-linux, bootstrapping
with --enable-checking=yes,fold
Elapsed (wall clock) time (h:mm:ss or m:ss): 2:32:58
That was with a small patch for PR32461 on which I'm working now.

Sebastian

On 6/22/07, Kaveh R. GHAZI <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu> wrote:

I'd like to see a comparison of default vs. "yes,rtl" vs. "yes,fold" vs.
"yes,rtl,fold" (if you have the free cpu time).  That way we could see
which one yields the worst time regression.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] Temporarily enable ac_fold_checking for --enable-checking=yes.
  - From: Mark Mitchell

References:
- [PATCH] Temporarily enable ac_fold_checking for --enable-checking=yes.
  - From: Uros Bizjak
- Re: [PATCH] Temporarily enable ac_fold_checking for --enable-checking=yes.
  - From: Sebastian Pop
- Re: [PATCH] Temporarily enable ac_fold_checking for --enable-checking=yes.
  - From: Kaveh R. GHAZI

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]