From owner-freebsd-current Tue Jul 2 23: 1:21 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1143B37B400 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 23:01:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [216.240.41.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95EF543E5E for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 23:01:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: from apollo.backplane.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by apollo.backplane.com (8.12.4/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g6361ET4010290; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 23:01:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.12.4/8.12.3/Submit) id g6361E5E010289; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 23:01:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 23:01:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <200207030601.g6361E5E010289@apollo.backplane.com> To: "David O'Brien" Cc: FreeBSD current users Subject: Re: -current results (was something funny with soft updates?) References: <200207020314.g623Eke5038019@apollo.backplane.com> <20020702164756.E70767@dragon.nuxi.com> <200207030106.g6316Rwp008905@apollo.backplane.com> <20020702182303.A94386@dragon.nuxi.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG :If you can quantify this, it is something we can pass on to the GCC :folks. They are rather receptive right now due to wanting GCC 3.1.1 to :be very high quality. Run-time of the compiler isn't anything that can :be fixed right now -- but if you show how small (but not 3 line trivial) :programs run slower that would be of interest. -Matt Matthew Dillon Just play with a couple of interpreted languages, like csh, perl, etc... run the same program compiled with GCC2 and again with GCC3 doing something cpu-bound, like a loop. #!bin/csh -f # set history = 0 set i = 0 while ($i < 10000) @ i = $i + 1 end (csh built with GCC2, -O3) test3:/home/dillon> time ./x.csh 0.832u 0.848s 0:01.68 99.4% 881+645k 0+0io 0pf+0w test3:/home/dillon> time ./x.csh 0.926u 0.755s 0:01.68 99.4% 889+654k 0+0io 0pf+0w (csh built with GCC3, -O3) test3:/home/dillon> time ./x.csh 0.950u 0.693s 0:01.64 100.0% 900+648k 0+0io 0pf+0w test3:/home/dillon> time ./x.csh 0.810u 0.833s 0:01.64 100.0% 900+648k 0+0io 0pf+0w (csh built with GCC3, -O) test3:/home/dillon> time ./x.csh 0.779u 0.904s 0:01.68 99.4% 760+641k 0+0io 0pf+0w test3:/home/dillon> time ./x.csh 0.817u 0.864s 0:01.68 99.4% 760+641k 0+0io 0pf+0w I also ran tests with some of my own code and got similar results. GCC3-compiled binaries do not appear to improve the performance of anything, at least not on a Pentium III, and yet we know from experience the the absolute best commercial compilers for IA32 can get 50-100% more performance (at least from the few postings to the lists where people have compared timing results). I get just about the same performance for GCC2 as I do for GCC3 in the tests I've run so far. It makes me wonder what the hell GCC3 is burning all that cpu *on*. -Matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message