On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 7:05 AM, Richard Guenther <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, that wasn't intended. I question these numbers because > unless you bootstrap say 100 times the noise in bootstrap speed > is way too high to make such claims. Of course critical information > is missing: I agree with Nathan. Your tone is sometimes borderline insulting. It creates unnecessary friction and does not serve anybody's purpose. There is no need to be so antagonistic at all times. > "The new code bootstraps .616% faster with a 99% confidence of being faster." > > 99% confidence on what basis? What's your sample size? Perhaps Lawrence can explain a bit more how he's getting these numbers. But they are not pulled out of thin air and he does go to the extra effort of measuring them and computing the differences. > Why does the patch need this kind of "marketing"? Because (a) we have always said that we want to make sure that the C++ conversion provides useful benefits, and (b) there has been so much negative pressure on our work, that we sometimes try to find some benefit when reality may provide neutral results. >> I, for one, think that it's excellent that Lawrence is writing these >> cleanup patches and measuring what impact they have on performance. >> Bonus points that they are making the compiler faster. Speed of the >> compiler *is* a scalability issue, and it's one that GCC doesn't >> appear to have paid all that much attention to over the years. > > I just don't believe the 0.5% numbers. Then ask. Don't mock, please. Diego.
