[Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[gerald at pfeifer dot com]

------- Additional Comments From gerald at pfeifer dot com  2005-02-07 23:09 -------
I had done extensive benchmarks around New Year, based on Steven's request in
comment #41.  Unfortunately I lost most of that data directly before posting
it here and couldn't repeat everything, but coincidently I could save exactly
those parts that Steven did not check now. ;-)  CVS refers to the state in
early January.

The following are for the full application which generate.ii is only one part
of, albeit a representative one.

First the time to build with -O3 and the resulting binary size:

  --------+ stripped-+ build time
  2.95    |  4577588 | 170.78 real
  3.2.3   |  4106176 | 219.70 real
  3.3 CVS |  1073280 | 209.02 real
  3.4 CVS |  1079120 | 189.82 real
  4.0 CVS |  1081776 | 164.86 real

Then some benchmarks results for the binaries; times in seconds, smaller is
better:
      
                        |   2.95 |  3.2.3 | 3.3 CVS | 3.4 CVS | 4.0 CVS |
          --------------+--------+--------+---------+---------+---------+
          STRATCOMP2-ALL|  17.96 | 127.44 |   89.51 |   21.02 |   20.47 |
         STRATCOMP-BRAVE|  77.09 |  78.33 |   77.70 |   83.33 |   82.83 |
                   2QBF1|  11.68 |  13.72 |   13.45 |   13.75 |   12.31 |
              PRIMEIMPL2|   7.52 |   8.05 |    7.21 |    7.00 |    7.42 |
                ANCESTOR|  70.44 |  69.91 |   71.22 |   67.36 |   61.36 |
           3COL-SIMPLEX1|   3.67 |   3.81 |    3.86 |    3.77 |    3.52 |
             3COL-LADDER|  77.99 |  81.11 |   81.72 |   73.23 |   71.58 |
           3COL-N-LADDER|   1.68 |   2.82 |    2.76 |    1.81 |    1.81 |
            3COL-RANDOM1|   8.38 |   8.33 |    7.84 |    8.13 |    8.61 |
              HP-RANDOM1|   6.52 |   7.29 |    7.19 |    7.90 |    7.65 |
           HAMCYCLE-FREE|  68.46 |  88.72 |   82.77 |   64.63 |   66.40 |
                 DECOMP2|   7.75 |   8.48 |    8.98 |    9.87 |    8.80 |
            BW-P5-Esra-a|  34.76 |  36.23 |   35.20 |   31.39 |   31.41 |
            BW-P8-nopush|  90.17 |  89.79 |   88.17 |   81.97 |   83.51 |
           BW-P6-pushbin|  60.23 |  62.86 |   61.34 |   59.09 |   59.94 |
         BW-P7-nopushbin|  84.94 |  87.46 |   83.80 |   79.93 |   81.23 |
                  3SAT-1|  23.91 |  24.91 |   22.55 |   22.23 |   23.19 |
       3SAT-1-CONSTRAINT|  13.97 |  14.76 |   13.51 |   13.37 |   14.15 |
            HANOI-Towers| 737.91 | 632.95 |  636.27 |  680.56 |  661.77 |
         RAMSEY(3,7)!=21|  68.93 |  73.92 |   71.77 |   74.71 |   73.59 |
 RAMSEY(3,7)!=21, normal|  83.92 |  84.02 |   83.32 |   81.23 |   79.21 |
         RAMSEY(4,6)!=25|  92.53 |  99.69 |   95.06 |   96.33 |   90.40 |
         RAMSEY(4,6)!=26| 130.68 | 142.55 |  134.61 |  134.75 |  124.73 |
                 CRISTAL|   5.75 |   5.98 |    5.67 |    5.56 |    5.29 |
                 HANOI-K|1176.06 |1289.65 | 1252.41 | 1154.43 | 1082.85 |
               21-QUEENS|   7.09 |   7.12 |    6.30 |    6.30 |    6.31 |
       MSTDir[V=13,A=40]|  14.34 |  13.02 |   12.34 |   11.50 |   11.69 |
       MSTDir[V=15,A=40]|  14.20 |  12.98 |   12.43 |   11.47 |   11.65 |
     MSTUndir[V=13,A=40]|   7.18 |   7.07 |    6.53 |    6.14 |    6.34 |
     MSTUndir[V=15,A=40]| 116.86 | 113.12 |  104.71 |   99.37 |  103.56 |
          TIMETABLING_4C| 137.64 | 140.79 |  138.66 |  173.87 |  165.50 |
      SCHOOL_TIMETABLING| 328.57 |    -   |     -   |  329.02 |  310.30 | 

So, in terms of build time and binary size we are fine, and also benchmark
performance is nicely improved on average (with some regressions, though).

For whether we can close this now, I'll just refer to comment #32 and
comment #45 (and Kaveh's note on memory usage).

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361