"Doug Gregor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 3/20/07, Kaveh R. GHAZI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Would you please consider testing the 16 bit tree code as you did for 8 vs > > 9 bits? Perhaps you could also measure memory usage for all three > > solutions? > > I've measured the 8 vs. 9-bit solutions: they have identical memory footprints. > > > I think that would give us a complete picture to make an > > informed decision. > > Sorry, I thought I'd reported these numbers already. Here's a quick > summary for tramp3d: > > 8-bit codes: Total 162M 100M 1732k > 16-bit codes: Total 164M 108M 1732k
Unfortunately these stats do not reflect the actual memory use, this is the memory that is still in use when the compilation process is done. What you want is to compile gcc with --enable-gather-detailed-mem-stats and then -fmem-report will give you memory usage for all tree types. > Results of -fmem-report on i686-pc-linux-gnu follow. > > Cheers, > Doug > > 8-bit tree codes (same with 9-bit tree codes): > > Memory still allocated at the end of the compilation process ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I think we should add an extra line of text here that states that for detailed memory used info --enable-gather-detailed-mem-stats needs to be used. Should I send a patch?
