[Bug other/55309] gcc's address-sanitizer 66% slower than clang's
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55309 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-14 16:37:36 UTC --- Also, this comparison doesn't have numbers for pure clang without -fsanitize=address and gcc without -faddress-sanitizer, so likely most of the speed differences can't be attributed just to asan.
[Bug other/55309] gcc's address-sanitizer 66% slower than clang's
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55309 --- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de 2012-11-14 17:02:54 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) Also, this comparison doesn't have numbers for pure clang without -fsanitize=address and gcc without -faddress-sanitizer, so likely most of the speed differences can't be attributed just to asan. Yes. It was meant as a rough estimate. Here is a more complete result (clang trunk build with Release mode, gcc trunk with --enable-checking=release and lto/profiledbootstraped): clang (with-without): 1278.47-662.47 = 616 gcc (with-without): 2733.02-1168.07= 1564.95 That's still a 60.64% slowdown.
[Bug other/55309] gcc's address-sanitizer 66% slower than clang's
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55309 Konstantin Serebryany konstantin.s.serebryany at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||konstantin.s.serebryany at ||gmail dot com --- Comment #1 from Konstantin Serebryany konstantin.s.serebryany at gmail dot com 2012-11-13 21:10:23 UTC --- While this is an interesting comparison, I should note that the typical use of asan is with -O1 or -O2, so it might make more sense to compare the asan implementations at -O1/-O2
[Bug other/55309] gcc's address-sanitizer 66% slower than clang's
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55309 --- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de 2012-11-13 21:31:08 UTC --- gcc uses -O2 -g by default for --disable-bootstrap. Also ,to be fair, if one uses a profiledbootstrapped gcc configured with --enable-checking=release to build it only takes 12:58.77 on the same machine.
[Bug other/55309] gcc's address-sanitizer 66% slower than clang's
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55309 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-14 07:51:44 UTC --- Note that GCC doesn't perform any ASAN optimizations yet (if the same address is written or read several times in the same bb, it doesn't optimize away the tests). We plan to first switch to first expanding the shadow memory checks as simple builtins without control flow, performing optimizations on them and only later on (in fab pass?) to expand it to the longer sequences with control flow in them.
