> Grigory Zagorodnev wrote: > > Mark Mitchell wrote: > >> Excellent question; I should have asked for that as well. If 4.2 has > >> gained on 4.1 in other respects, the 4.7% drop might represent a smaller > >> regression relative to 4.1. > >> > > There is the 4.2 (r120817) vs. 4.1.2 release FP performance comparison > > numbers. SPECfp_base2006 of gcc 4.2 has 19% performance gain over 4.1.2. > > Thank you for the measurements. > > In that case, I think we have absolutely nothing to worry about for > 4.2.0. Whether we deliver 19% SPECfp, 23% SPECfp, or 15% SPECfp > improvements isn't so important; all of those numbers are a vast > improvement over 4.1.x. Given that, I think we should just leave > Danny's conservative changes in, and not worry.
It should be understood that the large improvement on Cores is special case caused by adding a generic model and CPU specific tuning (We originally measured 28% speedup on P4 and SPECfp2000 just for that change). Situation can be less optimistic on other (sub)targets. Still we made important progress on SPECfp in the 4.x series, so 4% slowdown would not bring us to performance of GCC's from mid 90's as 4% slowdown on SPECint would perhaps do... Honza > > Thanks, > > -- > Mark Mitchell > CodeSourcery > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > (650) 331-3385 x713
