Re: Compiler speed (vanilla vs. LTO, PGO and LTO+PGO)

2013-03-28 Thread Jan Hubicka
> Interesting, I was able to get faste LTO+PGO compile times than non-LTO,PGO. > I however did testng only on combine.c compliation, so not very scientific. > > There are some cases FDO information is not streamed well in all cases. I > will > post patch for that later today. Perhaps it will ma

Re: Re: Compiler speed (vanilla vs. LTO, PGO and LTO+PGO)

2013-03-26 Thread gcc_mailinglist
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Gesendet: Dienstag, 26 März 2013 um 12:13:26 Uhr Von: "Jan Hubicka" An: "Markus Trippelsdorf" Betreff: Re: Compiler speed (vanilla vs. LTO, PGO and LTO+PGO) > Yes, the binary size is 8-10% smaller. Unfortunately there are no performance

Re: Compiler speed (vanilla vs. LTO, PGO and LTO+PGO)

2013-03-26 Thread Jan Hubicka
> Yes, the binary size is 8-10% smaller. Unfortunately there are no performance > improvements. > > LTO+PGO-disable-plugin: > -rwxr-xr-x 1 markus markus 15025568 Mar 25 15:49 cc1 > -rwxr-xr-x 1 markus markus 16198584 Mar 25 15:49 cc1plus > -rwxr-xr-x 1 markus markus 13907328 Mar 25 15:49 lto1 > -r

Re: Compiler speed (vanilla vs. LTO, PGO and LTO+PGO)

2013-03-25 Thread Markus Trippelsdorf
On 2013.03.25 at 15:17 +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf > wrote: > > On 2013.03.25 at 14:11 +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf > >> wrote: > >> > On 2013.03.25 at 08:06 +0100, Markus Trippelsdor

Re: Compiler speed (vanilla vs. LTO, PGO and LTO+PGO)

2013-03-25 Thread Richard Biener
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > On 2013.03.25 at 14:11 +0100, Richard Biener wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf >> wrote: >> > On 2013.03.25 at 08:06 +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: >> >> On 2013.03.24 at 20:53 +0100, gcc_mailingl...@abw

Re: Compiler speed (vanilla vs. LTO, PGO and LTO+PGO)

2013-03-25 Thread Markus Trippelsdorf
On 2013.03.25 at 14:11 +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf > wrote: > > On 2013.03.25 at 08:06 +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > >> On 2013.03.24 at 20:53 +0100, gcc_mailingl...@abwesend.de wrote: > >> > > >> > is it useful to compile gcc 4.8.0 wit

Re: Compiler speed (vanilla vs. LTO, PGO and LTO+PGO)

2013-03-25 Thread Markus Trippelsdorf
On 2013.03.25 at 06:07 -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > Markus Trippelsdorf writes: > > > > So it appears, contrary to the advice given above, that it is not useful > > to build gcc 4.8.0 with the lto option at the moment. > > Did you build firefox/kernel with debug info on/off? > > Often debug info o

Re: Compiler speed (vanilla vs. LTO, PGO and LTO+PGO)

2013-03-25 Thread Richard Biener
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > On 2013.03.25 at 08:06 +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: >> On 2013.03.24 at 20:53 +0100, gcc_mailingl...@abwesend.de wrote: >> > >> > is it useful to compile gcc 4.8.0 with the lto option? >> >> If you want a (slightly) faster compiler

Re: Compiler speed (vanilla vs. LTO, PGO and LTO+PGO)

2013-03-25 Thread Andi Kleen
Markus Trippelsdorf writes: > > So it appears, contrary to the advice given above, that it is not useful > to build gcc 4.8.0 with the lto option at the moment. Did you build firefox/kernel with debug info on/off? Often debug info on changes the compiler performance significantly, as it generate

Compiler speed (vanilla vs. LTO, PGO and LTO+PGO)

2013-03-25 Thread Markus Trippelsdorf
On 2013.03.25 at 08:06 +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > On 2013.03.24 at 20:53 +0100, gcc_mailingl...@abwesend.de wrote: > > > > is it useful to compile gcc 4.8.0 with the lto option? > > If you want a (slightly) faster compiler then yes. > Simply add "--with-build-config=bootstrap-lto" to you