Re[23]: Fwd: [Gc] Performance of bdwgc7.2 had degraded compared to 6.8 - the patch to test

Ivan Maidanski ivmai at
Mon Dec 13 12:56:51 PST 2010


As you previously pointed out:
> 7.2alpha2\"" -DPACKAGE_BUGREPORT=\"Hans.Boehm at\"
> -DPACKAGE=\"gc\" -DVERSION=\"7.2alpha2\" -DSTDC_HEADERS=1
> libatomic_ops/src -O3 -DNO_DEBUGGING -Iinclude -Ilibatomic_ops-install/include
> -I/misc/lab/bigloo/bench/3.5b-7.2alpha2-test2/bigloo3.5b/lib/3.5b -fPIC -fPIC
> -I/misc/lab/bigloo/bench/3.5b-7.2alpha2-test2/bigloo3.5b/lib/3.5b -MT alloc.lo
> -MD -MP -MF .deps/alloc.Tpo -c alloc.c -o alloc.o >/dev/null 2>&1
> For the version 7.1, we have:
> gcc -O3 -DNO_DEBUGGING -Iinclude -Ilibatomic_ops-install/include
> -DFINALIZE_ON_DEMAND -I/misc/lab/bigloo/bench/3.5b-7.1/bigloo3.5b/lib/3.5b
> -fPIC -c -o alloc.o alloc.c

So, the difference in options, which might influence the speed, is that v7.2 has some additional ones:

You already tested NO_EXECUTE_PERMISSION, so do it for the rest 2 ones...


Mon, 13 Dec 2010 21:09:51 +0100  Manuel.Serrano at

> > Yes, as we can see from the latest benchmark result, the degradation
> > comes from that you switched from to the auto-generated
> > one. So, it will be easy, I hope, to find what compiler flag to blame...
> Yes, probably, but I have checked without being able to spot the
> difference (apart from -fexception that we have already
> checked). Libtool adds some complexity so it's not absolutely
> straightforward (at least for me) to understand where the two
> compilation processes differs.
> -- 
> Manuel
> ATTACHMENT: application/pgp-signature

More information about the Gc mailing list