7 nov 2010 kl. 22.50 skrev Justin Lebar:

>> check_for_temporal_macros could stop searching if both macros have been 
>> found?
>> I cannot tell if doing that would make any real difference.
> 
> We could certainly do that, although I don't think it would help much.
> If your code has lots of __TIME__s, you're screwed anyway.  :)
> 

Right!

> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Anders Furuhed
> <anders.furu...@pantor.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> check_for_temporal_macros could stop searching if both macros have been 
>> found?
>> I cannot tell if doing that would make any real difference.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Anders
>> 
>> 7 nov 2010 kl. 22.13 skrev Justin Lebar:
>> 
>>> This patch is a followup to the discussion in "Questions about two hot
>>> functions in ccache".
>>> 
>>> On my machine, the patch speeds up direct mode cache hits by about a
>>> factor of 1.7 for the c++_includes.cc test file.  My benchmark of
>>> |make clean && time make| in Mozilla's docshell/base went from 1.04s
>>> (git master) to 0.64s, a 1.63x speedup.
>>> 
>>> Full output from ../perf.py on c++_includes.cc is included below.
>>> 
>>> I suspect we could use the fast_hash function for preprocessor mode
>>> without much work.  I also suspect that switching to a smarter
>>> algorithm for searching for "#include" would decrease the cost of
>>> cache misses.  But I haven't profiled either of these cases.
>>> 
>>> I'm a bit concerned about the fact that I had to change the reported
>>> file lengths in the manifest test (in test.sh).  I'm not sure what's
>>> going on here; I may well have messed something up.  Hopefully not.
>>> :)
>>> 
>>> -Justin
>>> 
>>> $ ../perf.py -n10 --hit-factor=10 --ccache=../ccache gcc-4.5 c++_includes.cc
>>> Compilation command: gcc-4.5 c++_includes.cc -c -o c++_includes.o
>>> Compilercheck: mtime
>>> Compression: off
>>> Hardlink: off
>>> Nostats: off
>>> 
>>> * git master (9cdd1154)
>>> Without ccache:                               3.55 s (100.00 %) ( 1.00 x)
>>> With ccache, preprocessor mode, cache miss:   4.16 s (117.10 %) ( 0.85 x)
>>> With ccache, preprocessor mode, cache hit:    0.87 s ( 24.51 %) ( 4.08 x)
>>> With ccache, direct mode, cache miss:         4.22 s (118.98 %) ( 0.84 x)
>>> With ccache, direct mode, cache hit:          0.15 s (  4.36 %) (22.92 x)
>>> 
>>> * patched
>>> Without ccache:                               3.53 s (100.00 %) ( 1.00 x)
>>> With ccache, preprocessor mode, cache miss:   4.13 s (116.90 %) ( 0.86 x)
>>> With ccache, preprocessor mode, cache hit:    0.86 s ( 24.25 %) ( 4.12 x)
>>> With ccache, direct mode, cache miss:         4.15 s (117.55 %) ( 0.85 x)
>>> With ccache, direct mode, cache hit:          0.09 s (  2.47 %) (40.43 x)
>>> 
>>> * Speedup:  = .15 / .09 = 1.7x
>>> <diff>_______________________________________________
>>> ccache mailing list
>>> ccache@lists.samba.org
>>> https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache
>> 
>> Anders Furuhed
>> Pantor Engineering AB
>> +46 8 412 9781
>> 
>> 

Anders Furuhed
Pantor Engineering AB
+46 8 412 9781

_______________________________________________
ccache mailing list
ccache@lists.samba.org
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache

Reply via email to