Vergleich des Oberon x86−Compilers mit dem GNU gcc - Computer ...

quick (0.09%)puzzle (0.40%)tree (0.51%)global commonsubexpressioneliminationfunction inliningvariousmeasurementerrorlocal commonsubexpressioneliminationglobal commonsubexpressioneliminationfunction inliningloopoptimizationsvarious−local commonsubexpressioneliminationglobal commonsubexpressioneliminationfunction inlininginstructionschedulingloopoptimizationsvariousmeasurementerrorlocal common subexpressioneliminationlocal common subexpressioneliminationlocal common subexpressioneliminationoptimizationsglobal common subexpressioneliminationfunction inlininginstruction schedulingloop optimizationsoptimizationsglobal common subexpressioneliminationfunction inlininginstruction schedulingloop optimizationsoptimizationsglobal common subexpressioneliminationfunction inlininginstruction schedulingloop optimizationsvariousvariousvarious−2 −1 0 1 2effect−7 −6 −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11effect−2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 5effectperm (3.52%)towers (4.65%)local commonsubexpressioneliminationfunction inlininginstructionschedulingloopoptimizationsvarious−measurementerrorlocal commonsubexpressioneliminationglobal commonsubexpressioneliminationfunction inlininginstructionschedulingloopoptimizationsvarious−measurementerrorlocal common subexpressioneliminationlocal common subexpressioneliminationoptimizationsglobal common subexpressioneliminationfunction inlininginstruction schedulingloop optimizationsoptimizationsglobal common subexpressioneliminationfunction inlininginstruction schedulingloop optimizationsvariousvarious−12−11−10 −9 −8 −7 −6 −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2effect−10 −9 −8 −7 −6 −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3effectSinnvolle Schlussfolgerungen lassen sich also aus diesen Daten allerdings kaum ziehen.Interessant ist allerdings zu sehen, dass die Optimierungen im Verhältnis zur Performancenur sehr wenig bringen. Der Anteil liegt in den meisten Fällen unter 1%!