https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89829
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Serge Belyshev from comment #2) > On the other hand, benchmarking shows that better training brings no > advantage. Or rather, slight measurable regression is apparent: > > option | training dataset | benchmark | compiler > binary > | | time, s | size, > MB > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > bootstrap | N/A | 11.203 | 32.2 > profiledbootstrap | none | 11.518 | 38.0 > profiledbootstrap | libgcc | 10.091 | 30.1 > profiledbootstrap | stagetrain | 10.130 | 30.8 > profiledbootstrap | libgcc+stagetrain | 10.116 | 30.9 > profiledbootstrap | as above + combined tree | 10.128 | 30.9 > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > > Thus, some tuning is needed, I guess. > > Notes: BOOT_CFLAGS=-Ofast was used for the above. Benchmark is cc1files > from gcc 3.4, compiled by compiler under test with -Ofast. Time values are > averages of 100 runs, standard error of mean is about 0.001 s, sample > standard deviaton is 0.011 s. I did some speed comparison among GCC builds last year, please take a look: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2018-03/msg00057.html
