This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sourceware.org mailing list for the crossgcc project.
See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots more information.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On (11/09/09 23:20), Martin Guy wrote: > On 9/11/09, ng@piments.com <ng@piments.com> wrote: > > I see you're posting patch sets for 4.2 and 4.3. I recall you said > > somewhere that 4.2.x produced faster ARM code. Is that still your > > experience? > > THere's some extra measurements I didn't post there: using differen > GCCs to compile gcc-4.3.4, and measuring the size of the different > GCCs themselves and the size of the object code they generate and the > maximum memory they use to do it (compiling insn_recog.c as a rule): > > --the compiler itself-- --on gcc-4.3.2 stage1-- > Version gcc cc1 cc1 Elapsed Max VM xgcc > text text data time used text > gcc-3.4 79579 3862155 3236 4m30 104128 209509 > gcc-4.0 86429 4579965 10208 4m44 111104 225846 > gcc-4.1 193369 5115620 15976 4m56 123264 226469 > gcc-4.2 188582 5490547 17364 4m50 112128 221171 > gcc-4.3 203918* 7010746 420820 6m41 157440 227755 > gcc-4.4 202989* 9431805 546128 8m21 170550 249260 > llvm4.2 189365 4m56 67136 236957 Did you compile exact same insn_recog.c source ? if not then you are comparing apples to pineapples. -Khem > > so 4.2 shows an unexpected dip in its own size, its memory use, the > time it takes to run and the size of its output code. > (Maybe it was just gathering its strength for the exponential growth > from 4.3 onwards :) > > M > > -- > For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq > -- For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |