eon performance regression

[Jan Hubicka]

> >>>>> "Jan" == Jan Hubicka <jh@suse.cz> writes:
> 
> >> Any more word on this?  Is the regression still present?  Have you tested
> >> to see whether or not it was due to my patch?
> 
> > Andreas had benchmarked reverting your calls.c patch and it causes about 10
> > points regression on eon. Interestingly enought there is also some speedup
> > in crafty.  Can that be caused by your patch?
> 
> Not if it's written in C.  C never uses TARGET_EXPR.
> 
> > Base Compiler: GCC CVS
> > Peak Compiler: GCC CVS with patch for calls.c
> 
> I assume that "patch for calls.c" means the patch to revert my change.
> 
> >                                      Estimated                     Estimated
> >                    Base      Base      Base      Peak      Peak      Peak
> >    Benchmarks    Ref Time  Run Time   Ratio    Ref Time  Run Time   Ratio
> >    ------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------
> >    252.eon           1300       217       600      1300       213       611 
> >    252.eon           1300       216       601*     1300       212       612 
> >    252.eon           1300       216       601      1300       213       611*
> 
> OK, that seems pretty conclusive, thanks.  Unfortunately, my patch is
> necessary for correctness, so we can't just revert it.  I wonder if the
> slowdown is simply due to code expansion, or what.
Code expansion looks like good explanation. Eon is extremly big spageti and
almost any code size reducting patch helps the performance here.

OK, now it is time to dig out the slowdown before 21st december.

Honza
> 
> Jason