We're out of tree codes; now what?

[Doug Gregor]

On 3/20/07, Dan Nicolaescu <dann@ics.uci.edu> wrote:
> "Doug Gregor" <doug.gregor@gmail.com> writes:
>
>   > On 3/20/07, Kaveh R. GHAZI <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu> wrote:
>   > > Would you please consider testing the 16 bit tree code as you did for 8 vs
>   > > 9 bits?  Perhaps you could also measure memory usage for all three
>   > > solutions?
>   >
>   > I've measured the 8 vs. 9-bit solutions: they have identical memory footprints.
>   >
>   > >  I think that would give us a complete picture to make an
>   > > informed decision.
>   >
>   > Sorry, I thought I'd reported these numbers already. Here's a quick
>   > summary for tramp3d:
>   >
>   > 8-bit codes: Total        162M        100M       1732k
>   > 16-bit codes: Total        164M        108M       1732k
>
> Unfortunately these stats do not reflect the actual memory use, this
> is the memory that is still in use when the compilation process is
> done. What you want is to compile gcc with
> --enable-gather-detailed-mem-stats and then -fmem-report will give you
> memory usage for all tree types.

I don't have time to do this right now, but as part of these tests I
used the little tool on the tramp3d page to determine the maximum
total virtual memory usage. It's not the complete information we want,
but it shows us a little more of the picture:

  8-bit codes: total: 432961 kB
  16-bit codes: total: 452701 kB

  Cheers,
  Doug