> On 15 July 2014 15:43, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > I also noticed that GCC code size is bigger for both firefox and
> > libreoffice.
> > There was some extra bloat in 4.9 compared to 4.8.
> > Martin did some tests with -O2 and various flags, perhaps we could trottle
> > some of -O2 optimizations.
>
On 15 July 2014 15:43, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> I also noticed that GCC code size is bigger for both firefox and libreoffice.
> There was some extra bloat in 4.9 compared to 4.8.
> Martin did some tests with -O2 and various flags, perhaps we could trottle
> some of -O2 optimizations.
Now that you men
> On 25 June 2014 10:26, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
> > Why is GCC code size so much bigger than LLVM? Does -Ofast have more
> > unrolling
> > on GCC? It doesn't seem increasing code size help performance (164.gzip &
> > 197.parser)
> > Is there comparisons for O2? I guess that is more useful for typic
Dear all,
Do you have any results of GCC and LLVM performance comparisons of
different versions (for *ARM* architecture)?
It's not obvious question to find such comparisons in Web, since
Phoronix usually publishes comparisons for x86 and x86_64, and last
comparison for ARM was performed in 201
On 2014-06-25, 10:01 AM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
On 2014-06-24, 10:57 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
I've tried this options too. As I guessed it resulted in GCC
improvement of eon only by 6% which improved overall score by less 0.5%.
No change for LLVM though. Eon is more fp benchmark w
On 2014-06-25, 10:37 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
Maybe. But in this case LLVM did a right thing. The variable
addressing was through a restrict pointer.
Ah, gcc implements (on purpose?) a weak version of restrict, where it
only considers that 2 restri
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
Maybe. But in this case LLVM did a right thing. The variable addressing was
through a restrict pointer.
Ah, gcc implements (on purpose?) a weak version of restrict, where it only
considers that 2 restrict pointers don't alias, whereas all other
On 2014-06-25, 10:02 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
On 2014-06-25, 5:32 AM, Renato Golin wrote:
On 25 June 2014 10:26, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
Why is GCC code size so much bigger than LLVM? Does -Ofast have more
unrolling
on GCC? It doesn't s
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 04:02:49PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > That might be a consequence of difference in aliasing I wrote about. I
> > looked at the code generated by LLVM and GCC of an interpreter and saw
> > bigger code generated by GCC too.
> >
> > A sequence of bytecodes execution
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> On 2014-06-25, 5:32 AM, Renato Golin wrote:
>>
>> On 25 June 2014 10:26, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
>>>
>>> Why is GCC code size so much bigger than LLVM? Does -Ofast have more
>>> unrolling
>>> on GCC? It doesn't seem increasing code size help
On 2014-06-24, 10:57 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
The ball-park number you have probably won't change much.
I don't think Neon can improve score for SPECInt2000 significantly but
may be I am wrong.
It won't probably improve the overall score by a large amount but some
individual benchmar
On 2014-06-25, 5:32 AM, Renato Golin wrote:
On 25 June 2014 10:26, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
Why is GCC code size so much bigger than LLVM? Does -Ofast have more unrolling
on GCC? It doesn't seem increasing code size help performance (164.gzip &
197.parser)
Is there comparisons for O2? I guess that
cc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of
>>>> Vladimir Makarov
>>>> Sent: 24 June 2014 16:07
>>>> To: Ramana Radhakrishnan; gcc.gcc.gnu.org
>>>> Subject: Re: Comparison of GCC-4.9 and LLVM-3.4 performance on
>>>> SP
eng
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of
>>> Vladimir Makarov
>>> Sent: 24 June 2014 16:07
>>> To: Ramana Radhakrishnan; gcc.gcc.gnu.org
>>> Subject: Re: Comparison of
/embedded programmers.
>
> Bingfeng
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of
>> Vladimir Makarov
>> Sent: 24 June 2014 16:07
>> To: Ramana Radhakrishnan; gcc.gcc.gnu.org
>> Subject: Re: Com
On 25 June 2014 10:26, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
> Why is GCC code size so much bigger than LLVM? Does -Ofast have more unrolling
> on GCC? It doesn't seem increasing code size help performance (164.gzip &
> 197.parser)
> Is there comparisons for O2? I guess that is more useful for typical
> mobile/emb
/embedded programmers.
Bingfeng
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of
> Vladimir Makarov
> Sent: 24 June 2014 16:07
> To: Ramana Radhakrishnan; gcc.gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Comparison of GCC-4.9 and LLVM-3.4 performance
On 24 June 2014 18:16, Eric Christopher wrote:
> Might want to try asking them to run some comparison numbers though. I
> remember they did before EuroLLVM a while back when we were looking at
> merging our two aarch64 ports.
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2014-April/072393.html
In t
> Could you recommend me what best options you think I should use for this
> processor.
>
> As I wrote, I am more interesting in aarch64 which can be used in a
> server (as you know RedHat works on a server market) but unfortunately I
> have no such machine for SPEC benchmarking.
>
I know Qualcomm
On 06/24/2014 10:57 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
>
> The ball-park number you have probably won't change much.
>
>>>
>> Unfortunately, that is the configuration I can use on my system because
>> of lack of libraries for other configurations.
>
> Using --with-fpu={neon / neon-vfpv4} shouldn't cau
I wonder how much of that is due to auto-vectorization (on LLVM, -O2+
turns it on, I suppose GCC is only on -O3?). From Ramana's point,
there may be nothing serious if you haven't enabled NEON, though.
Auto-vec is turned off when you have -mfpu=vfpv3-d16 . That implies No Neon.
Ramana
Also
The ball-park number you have probably won't change much.
Unfortunately, that is the configuration I can use on my system because
of lack of libraries for other configurations.
Using --with-fpu={neon / neon-vfpv4} shouldn't cause you ABI issues with
libraries for any other configurations.
On 06/24/2014 10:42 AM, Renato Golin wrote:
> On 24 June 2014 15:11, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>> A few people asked me about new performance comparison of latest GCC
>> and LLVM. So I've finished it and put it on my site
>>
>> http://vmakarov.fedorapeople.org/spec/
>>
>> The comparison is achi
On 06/24/2014 10:36 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
>
>
> On 24/06/14 15:11, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>>A few people asked me about new performance comparison of latest GCC
>> and LLVM. So I've finished it and put it on my site
>>
>> http://vmakarov.fedorapeople.org/spec/
>>
>>The compariso
On 24 June 2014 15:11, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> A few people asked me about new performance comparison of latest GCC
> and LLVM. So I've finished it and put it on my site
>
> http://vmakarov.fedorapeople.org/spec/
>
> The comparison is achievable from 2014 link and links under it in
> the le
On 24/06/14 15:11, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
A few people asked me about new performance comparison of latest GCC
and LLVM. So I've finished it and put it on my site
http://vmakarov.fedorapeople.org/spec/
The comparison is achievable from 2014 link and links under it in
the left frame.
27 matches
Mail list logo
