This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: Speed/profile of gcc3.4


On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Richard Guenther wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > To give some more data to the speed of g++ discussion I built a profiling
> > > compiler and ran it over the tramp3d.cpp testcase
> > > (http://www.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de/~rguenth/gcc/tramp3d.cpp.gz). Top
> > > on the (flat) profile are
> > >
> > >   %   cumulative   self              self     total
> > >  time   seconds   seconds    calls   s/call   s/call  name
> > >   7.85     24.64    24.64 71506294     0.00     0.00  ggc_alloc
> > >   3.37     35.23    10.59 75978109     0.00     0.00  htab_find_slot_with_hash
> > >   3.17     45.20     9.97 15526171     0.00     0.00  walk_tree
> >
> > Actually I did some profiling of this too and at least from Gerald's
> > testcase I concluded that wast majority of the hashtable uses come from
> > the for_each_template_parm.  Jason mentioned that Mark plans to trim
> > down use of these.  That should make it possible to shot this function
> > out of profiles completely.
> >
> > Mark, do you made some progress on this?  If not, I can try to do
> > something myself if you give me someguidelines.

Btw. - looking at walk_tree_without_duplicates and the associated
walk_tree in tree-inline.c - we're putting all visited trees in the
hashtab.  Can't we avoid putting trees inside there that can't be shared?
Maybe at least optimize this in the for_each_template_param case?

Just a thought,

Richard.

--
Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at uni-tuebingen dot de>
WWW: http://www.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de/~rguenth/


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