http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33928
--- Comment #116 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu 2011-03-04 16:09:13 UTC --- On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 11:59 +0000, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33928 > > --- Comment #115 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> > 2011-03-04 11:58:13 UTC --- > Hm, there doesn't seem to be a runtime testcase attached to this bug, so I > can't produce numbers for the upcoming 4.6 release. Brad, can you do so > if you have time? I'll work on it. I just went through all the comments in this bug report to remind me of the issues, of which there seem to be two. The first is the runtime performance of the direct FFT in direct.c, as discussed, e.g., in comment 103 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33928#c103 and the second is the compile-time performance. I presume you want to know about the performance of the FFT code. This is a very specific benchmark (one routine) and would not be indicative of general > Btw, how difficult is it to setup a continuous performance testing of Gambit? > Is Gambit reasonably self-contained (no external dependenices, > commandline-driven)? I'm considering to add it to > http://gcc.opensuse.org/c++bench/ > I probably can get it built but would appreciate hints on how to setup an > automated performance test. > It's completely self-contained and very portable. Benchmarking could be automated. It has a benchmark suite that measures runtime and compile-time performance of a number of programs, most small, but some larger (so compilation used to take quite a few GB of memory and several minutes or more of CPU time; these are not benchmarked by default; would you want to run these as extreme tests of the compiler?). I'll talk with Marc Feeley, the author of Gambit, about how to automate the benchmarks; it will probably require just "make bench" with various options if desired. Brad
