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: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO

From: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at libertysurf dot fr>
To: Steven Bosscher <steven at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>, gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 00:09:36 +0100
Subject: Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO
References: <200511221817.jAMIH2Co014676@porkchop.devel.redhat.com> <200511222332.52530.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> <200511222351.38530.steven@gcc.gnu.org>

> True, but GCC 4.0 produces code that is hardly better than what
> GCC 3.3 makes of it, and 4.0 is still significantly slower.

Maybe compared to your "hammer" branch.  On SPARC, FSF 3.4 is definitely 
better than FSF 3.3 and 4.0 not worse than 3.4.

> Just not as much as GCC 4.1 (something like 15%-20% wrt. GCC 3.3, iirc).

Yes, Tree-SSA per se is not responsible for the 40% slowdown you reported.

-- 
Eric Botcazou

References:
- Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO
  - From: Benjamin Kosnik
- Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO
  - From: Eric Botcazou
- Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO
  - From: Steven Bosscher

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