From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25210 invoked by alias); 11 Feb 2004 19:25:53 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 25170 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2004 19:25:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 Feb 2004 19:25:51 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (nat-pool-rdu-dmz.redhat.com [172.16.52.200] (may be forged)) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i1BJPnb12117 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:25:49 -0500 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i1BJPkM22416; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:25:46 -0500 Received: from redhat.com (reddwarf.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.50]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i1BJPjX13909; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:25:45 -0800 Message-ID: <402A81B9.6080009@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 19:25:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder Organization: Red Hat, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joern Rennecke CC: Joern Rennecke , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA (revised)] sh-sim, expand the opcode table References: <200402111233.i1BCXF727696@linsvr1.uk.superh.com> In-Reply-To: <200402111233.i1BCXF727696@linsvr1.uk.superh.com> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------070902010406050206020904" X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00305.txt.bz2 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------070902010406050206020904 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-length: 1325 Joern Rennecke wrote: >>This is a multi-part message in MIME format. >>--------------020902070606080708050409 >>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed >>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> >>Hi Joern, >> >>Here are some benchmark results. Following your advice, I took the >>arith-rand test, increased its main loop count until it took around >>10 seconds to run on my test machine, and tested it against the eight >>optimization combinations that are tested for in the gcc torture test >>[see methodology notes attached] >> >> >>I found that my change increased the runtime by 1.5 to 2 percent >>(even when I added the new instructions that I'm working on). > > > Was that with or without ACE_FAST ? Forgot to define ACE_FAST -- new results attached (just for the 16-bit case). >>That didn't seem too bad to me, but I took some advice from Alex >>Oliva and tried simply changing the sh_jmp_table from char to short. >>This much simpler change increased the runtime by only 0.5 to 1 >>percent, at the cost of 64k more data space. > > > That makese sense... but what is the cost of adding the new instructions? Imprecisely speaking, they did not seem to make any difference at all. The number of new insns is actually not that great -- they only bring the switch statement up to about 290 cases. --------------070902010406050206020904 Content-Type: text/plain; name="results.ace" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="results.ace" Content-length: 340 orig 16bit %inc O0 9.048 9.049 .01 9.050 9.035 0 O1 5.557 5.592 .63 5.550 5.595 .81 O2 5.465 5.538 1.3 5.460 5.535 1.4 O3 4.784 4.830 .96 4.775 4.820 .94 O3 omit 4.695 4.747 1.1 4.690 4.750 1.3 O3 omit unroll 4.694 4.738 .94 4.695 4.735 .85 O3 -g 4.786 4.841 1.1 4.780 4.840 1.3 Os 5.475 5.525 .91 5.475 5.515 .73 --------------070902010406050206020904--