[gambit-list] Performance of different versions of gcc
Bradley Lucier
lucier at math.purdue.edu
Sun Apr 29 13:21:26 EDT 2012
On Apr 29, 2012, at 12:51 PM, Marc Feeley wrote:
> On 2012-04-29, at 10:52 AM, Bradley Lucier wrote:
>>
>> What I'm trying to say is that while this test gives a good study of gcc's default behavior, a broader study would be needed to see which optimizations are applied to Gambit-generated code, how long they take at compile time, and how much they benefit execution speed.
>
> Are you suggesting this should be done for every version of gcc?
I'm not suggesting anything, except not to draw too broad conclusions from this broad study.
> It is hard enough to do for a single version, and the effort will mostly have to be redone for the next release.
I've found that '-fschedule-insns' and '-frename-registers' help in x86_64 and powerpc code (not in i386 code, which doesn't have enough registers). It would be hard, without actually adding the code to gcc itself to implement -Wdisabled-optimization at all the right spots, to see what optimizations are actually performed, say, on _io.c with -O2.
> If I were a gcc developer I might be motivated to do this,
I'm sorry, I've lost the thread here, what is "this"?
> Would you or someone else be interested in doing this?
Adding the warnings in all the right places is on my "bucket list". (It's such a boring list, really.)
Brad
More information about the Gambit-list
mailing list