Hi Sergy,
Is this a new patch that replaces the -march flag (and has the same
performance benefits)? Are those options compatible with all of our
supported platforms?
If so, then we should file a bug and get that into 9...
...jim
On 10/1/15 10:10 AM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
My patch below:
====================================<
diff -r 2b680924a73f make/lib/Awt2dLibraries.gmk
--- a/make/lib/Awt2dLibraries.gmk Wed Sep 16 18:34:38 2015 +0300
+++ b/make/lib/Awt2dLibraries.gmk Thu Oct 01 17:06:38 2015 +0300
@@ -243,7 +243,7 @@
EXCLUDES := $(LIBAWT_EXCLUDES), \
EXCLUDE_FILES := $(LIBAWT_EXFILES), \
OPTIMIZATION := LOW, \
- CFLAGS := $(CFLAGS_JDKLIB) $(LIBAWT_CFLAGS), \
+ CFLAGS := -fgcse-after-reload -ftree-vectorize $(CFLAGS_JDKLIB)
$(LIBAWT_CFLAGS), \
DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc := sign-compare unused-result
maybe-uninitialized \
format-nonliteral parentheses, \
====================================<
The next commands will show gcc commandline
touch jdk/src/java.desktop/share/native/libawt/java2d/loops/AnyInt.c
make images LOG=debug
----- bourges.laur...@gmail.com wrote:
Sergey,
Thanks for having tests.
What is the units of your your results ?
I guess it is on the time axis: slower values are better.
How did you hack the gcc options in the openjdk build scripts ?
I could try on my local build too.
Bye,
Laurent
Le 1 oct. 2015 17:39, "Sergey Bylokhov" <sergey.bylok...@oracle.com
<mailto:sergey.bylok...@oracle.com>> a écrit :
>
> I got results below after I made a hack and added -march=native to
the libawt library:
>
> "EllipseFill.fillEllipse 1400"
> 8u60_RE: 6,540
> 9_dev: 8,457
> 9_hack: 6,276
>
> So we have a window for tweaking.
>
> ----- sergey.bylok...@oracle.com <mailto:sergey.bylok...@oracle.com>
wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> > I built both version of jdk8 and jdk9 on my local system, and compares
> > output of preprocessor and generated assemblers, both are identical.
> > But jdk8u60 from RE actually 20% faster than my version of jdk8. It
> > seems that the difference is in the compiler and/or in some
> > compiler(gcc) options used by default.
> >
> > ----- james.gra...@oracle.com <mailto:james.gra...@oracle.com> wrote:
> >
> > > As far as why the software loops are slower...
> > >
> > > Did any command line options change for compiling IntArgbPre.c?
> > Touch
> > >
> > > the file and rebuild and verify if the compiler options are the same
> >
> > > (and that both builds use the same compiler)...
> > >
> > > ...jim
