I wrote:
On our weather forecasting code (compiled with -O3 -flto and linked with
-O3 -flto -fwhole-program) I get a speedup of 65 seconds per time step
in the model integration vs. 75 seconds with -O3 alone.
That is a 10/75 ~ 13 % improvement.
This morning I tried again, with a freshly upd
Hi,
thanks for the report! It is actually more promising than I've
expected. A while ago I did similar tests with whole-program and
--combine and we didn't get very consistent with performance (I saw also
code size reductions). I guess geomaverage will go down for specint
after vpr/gcc/perlbmk/g
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>
>> So things seems to work now plus minus as expected. I.e. LTO builds
>> seems similar to combined builds and whole-programs improves code size
>> quite noticeably.
>> Runtime results for gzip are pretty much unchang
Jan Hubicka wrote:
So things seems to work now plus minus as expected. I.e. LTO builds
seems similar to combined builds and whole-programs improves code size
quite noticeably.
Runtime results for gzip are pretty much unchanged, but that is
expected. I am quite curoius about full SPEC run.
Bef
> > L.S.,
> >
> > On our weather forecasting code (compiled with -O3 -flto and linked with
> > -O3 -flto -fwhole-program) I get a speedup of 65 seconds per time step
> > in the model integration vs. 75 seconds with -O3 alone.
>
> There is bug making -fwhole-program disabled with LTO compilation
> L.S.,
>
> On our weather forecasting code (compiled with -O3 -flto and linked with
> -O3 -flto -fwhole-program) I get a speedup of 65 seconds per time step
> in the model integration vs. 75 seconds with -O3 alone.
There is bug making -fwhole-program disabled with LTO compilations.
I hope to g
