GCC 3.3 compile speed regression - THE GRAPH
Fergus Henderson
fjh@cs.mu.oz.au
Wed Feb 12 19:57:00 GMT 2003
On 10-Feb-2003, Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au> wrote:
> gcc 2.95.4 -c -O2 ... 5.53
> gcc 2.95.4 -c -O1 ... 3.19
> gcc 2.95.4 -c -O0 ... 2.65
> gcc 2.95.4 -c -O0 -fsyntax-only ... 1.16
>
> gcc 3.4 20030209 -c -O2 ... 10.16
> gcc 3.4 20030209 -c -O1 ... 5.10
> gcc 3.4 20030209 -c -O0 ... 4.03
> gcc 3.4 20030209 -c -O0 -fsyntax-only ... 0.87
Sorry, I screwed up. Those results that I posted earlier were bogus,
because I forgot to configure with --disable-checking.
My apologies for the misinformation!
Here are the correct figures. For `-O0', we've only slowed down to 9.7 times
slower than tcc, not 11.8 times slower as I wrongly said in my earlier post,
and the net slowdown since 0.95 is only 1.4 times the time it takes tcc,
not four times.
I also have figures for gcc 3.2 now.
tcc 0.9.16 -c 0.34
lcc 4.1 -c 1.04
gcc 2.95.4 -c -O0 ... 2.65 base
gcc 3.2 -c -O0 ... 2.92 +10%
gcc 3.4 -c -O0 ... 3.30 +25%
gcc 2.95.4 -c -O1 ... 3.00 base
gcc 3.2 -c -O1 ... 3.62 +21%
gcc 3.4 -c -O1 ... 4.10 +37%
gcc 2.95.4 -c -Os ... 5.57 base
gcc 3.2 -c -Os ... 6.66 +20%
gcc 3.4 -c -Os ... 7.35 +32%
gcc 2.95.4 -c -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer ... 5.53 base
gcc 3.2 -c -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer ... 7.08 +28%
gcc 3.4 -c -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer ... 8.45 +53%
gcc 2.95.4 -c -O0 -fsyntax-only ... 1.16 base
gcc 3.2 -c -O0 -fsyntax-only ... 0.67 -42%
gcc 3.4 20030209 -c -O0 -fsyntax-only ... 0.67 -42%
The results are not very consistent from run to run (it was an unloaded
machine, but I didn't switch to single-user mode). I took the best of
five runs. But some of these figures might be off by 5% or thereabouts.
--
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au> | "I have always known that the pursuit
The University of Melbourne | of excellence is a lethal habit"
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
More information about the Gcc
mailing list