[Python-Dev] Python 2.6a2 execution times with various compilers (original) (raw)

Gregory P. Smith greg at krypto.org
Sun Apr 13 00:21:32 CEST 2008

On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven < asmodai at in-nomine.org> wrote:

I did some more tests concentrating on GCC, partly based on the feedback I got, results at http://www.in-nomine.org/2008/04/12/python-26-compiler-options-results/

Executive summary: Python needs to be compiled with -O2 or -O3. Not doing so, no optimization level, results with GCC 4.2.1 in a doubling of execution time. Using just -O1 is still ~15% slower than using -O2. Using -mtune=native -march=native can shave of 0,1/0,2 seconds, but otherwise I did not find much difference in using having march or mfpmath present. Profile-guided optimization did not help much, as might be expected, it pushed about the same kind of optimization as the mtune/march combination.

With gcc 4.1.3 i'm finding that profile guided optimization when trained on pybench or regrtest does make a measurable difference (2-5% overall time with 10-20% on some pybench tests). I haven't run benchmarks enough times to be confident in my results yet, I'll report back with data once I have it. I'm testing both pybench and regrtest as profiling training runs.

I will check in a special makefile target for easy gcc profile guided compiles shortly so that those who want faster builds easily produce them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20080412/6bfe80c4/attachment.htm

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list