Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #9286
| From | Victor Bazarov <v.bazarov@comcast.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c++ |
| Subject | Re: Performance of code compiled with the g++ |
| Date | 2011-08-24 08:11 -0400 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <j32pom$div$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <j329q7$j96$1@z-news.wcss.wroc.pl> |
On 8/24/2011 3:38 AM, Wojciech Waga wrote: > I was trying to test some performance gains of move semantics when I > came across a strange thing, namely: > > For a code: > http://pastebin.com/3jqgyc8v > > (There is a copy constructor to prevent gcc4.6 from using default move > constructor which speeds up things greatly, but is of no interest here.) > > The speed of resulting binary differs vastly among versions of gcc. It > seems like gcc<4.5 gives pretty good binary, and gcc>=4.5 does not. > Intel compiler 12.0.0 gives results similar to gcc<4.5. > > For those who prefer bare values: > The same code compiled with: > gcc4.4.6 runs 0.47s > gcc4.6.1 runs 1.73s > > A full plot comparing 3 versions of gcc with std= c++98/c++0x is here: > http://www.wojek.net/ww/gcc_speed.png > > Does anyone know what is wrong? You mean, besides the fact that GCC is community-based (meaning everybody, but in fact *nobody*, is responsible for the functionality or the performance)? > Especially the difference between gcc4.6 > with and without c++0x is interesting. Can be there any c++0x > optimisations in library routines for this code? Nah... Optimisation? In the library routines?... Nah... Could be that gcc C++0x is smart enough to see that your code has very little side effect (no I/O to speak of) and it figures to let you down easy and just puts some 'usleep' calls in there, just to keep you guessing? Use a profiler and figure out where the differences are. Then look at the machine code, if you're into it. But usually you should see all of that in the source. It's not like your program is so complex that its total source (including allocators and sorting) would be too hard to comprehend. V -- I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask
Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Performance of code compiled with the g++ Wojciech Waga <adun_wywalto_@o2.pl> - 2011-08-24 09:38 +0200
Re: Performance of code compiled with the g++ Victor Bazarov <v.bazarov@comcast.invalid> - 2011-08-24 08:11 -0400
Re: Performance of code compiled with the g++ Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-08-24 20:13 +0000
Re: Performance of code compiled with the g++ Victor Bazarov <v.bazarov@comcast.invalid> - 2011-08-24 17:07 -0400
Re: Performance of code compiled with the g++ Edek <edek.pienkowski@gmail.com> - 2011-08-24 22:32 +0200
csiph-web