This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Patch,optimization]: Optimized changes in the estimate register pressure cost.
- From: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep dot dot dot nop at gmail dot com>
- To: "Bin.Cheng" <amker dot cheng at gmail dot com>,Ajit Kumar Agarwal <ajit dot kumar dot agarwal at xilinx dot com>
- Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>,Vinod Kathail <vinodk at xilinx dot com>,Shail Aditya Gupta <shailadi at xilinx dot com>,Vidhumouli Hunsigida <vidhum at xilinx dot com>,Nagaraju Mekala <nmekala at xilinx dot com>
- Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 21:32:09 +0200
- Subject: Re: [Patch,optimization]: Optimized changes in the estimate register pressure cost.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <37378DC5BCD0EE48BA4B082E0B55DFAA42999946 at XAP-PVEXMBX02 dot xlnx dot xilinx dot com> <CAHFci28uXG1DOuji4BSwX19FND1Q1A1X_NWdyzcbj9iyC-R1_Q at mail dot gmail dot com>
On September 26, 2015 9:10:13 AM GMT+02:00, "Bin.Cheng" <amker.cheng@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal
><ajit.kumar.agarwal@xilinx.com> wrote:
>> SPEC CPU 2000 benchmarks are run and there is following impact on the
>performance
>> and code size.
>>
>> ratio with the optimization vs ratio without optimization for INT
>benchmarks
>> (3807.632 vs 3804.661)
>>
>> ratio with the optimization vs ratio without optimization for FP
>benchmarks
>> ( 4668.743 vs 4778.741)
Do I read this correctly to introduce a 2,4% regression for FP?
Thanks,
>>
>> Code size reduction with respect to FP SPEC CPU 2000 benchmarks
>>
>> Number of instruction with optimization = 1094117
>> Number of instruction without optimization = 1094659
>>
>> Reduction in number of instruction with the optimization = 542
>instruction.