[Bug testsuite/113175] [14 Regression] testsuite/std/ranges/iota/max_size_type.cc 5x times slower
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113175 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #4) > IIRC the "signed_rep_t = __int128;" case has really detected a compiler bug, > so IMO we shouldn't just disable it. > > Maybe my memory is flawed though. I think it was the opposite. Using `signed rep_t` relied on a compiler bug. When that bug was fixed we had to introduce a typedef for that type. I have no idea why it would make the test slower though.
[Bug testsuite/113175] [14 Regression] testsuite/std/ranges/iota/max_size_type.cc 5x times slower
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113175 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill ||a/show_bug.cgi?id=108099 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely --- PR108099 I think
[Bug testsuite/113175] [14 Regression] testsuite/std/ranges/iota/max_size_type.cc 5x times slower
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113175 --- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson --- (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #4) > IIRC the "signed_rep_t = __int128;" case has really detected a compiler bug, > so IMO we shouldn't just disable it. Maybe I should have been explicit: that was just for investigation purposes. > Maybe my memory is flawed though. Please link that PR here if you have it!
[Bug testsuite/113175] [14 Regression] testsuite/std/ranges/iota/max_size_type.cc 5x times slower
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113175 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #3) > There's one single regression event, bringing the host runtime to about 1.63 > seconds. Then some time later, an additional 0.1 second was added > (accumulated). > I did not look into that latter regression. The big one is clouded by a > large range of commits where max_size_type failed, due to > r14-159-g03cebd304955a6. > This was fixed in r14-205-g83470a5cd4c3d2, at which time there the big > regression is seen for the first time. That is also the "cause" for the > commit, because applying that commit to r14-158-g7d115e01411156 shows the > same number as for r14-205-g83470a5cd4c3d2. > > Actually, it's the testsuite part of that patch, because with that reverted > the execution time backs down to 0.33 seconds. IOW, this while PR is > /testsuites. Not sure what to do to improve the execution time, as plain > disabling the using "signed_rep_t = __int128;" by making the first line > "+#if 0 && __SIZEOF_INT128__" yields > /x/testsuite/std/ranges/iota/max_size_type.cc:36: note: the comparison > reduces to '(16 == 8)' > > Maybe the higher number for the execution time is actually the "right" one > and the range should be cut down to -100..100 for *all* targets? > > HNY! IIRC the "signed_rep_t = __int128;" case has really detected a compiler bug, so IMO we shouldn't just disable it. Maybe my memory is flawed though.
[Bug testsuite/113175] [14 Regression] testsuite/std/ranges/iota/max_size_type.cc 5x times slower
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113175 Hans-Peter Nilsson changed: What|Removed |Added Component|libstdc++ |testsuite --- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson --- There's one single regression event, bringing the host runtime to about 1.63 seconds. Then some time later, an additional 0.1 second was added (accumulated). I did not look into that latter regression. The big one is clouded by a large range of commits where max_size_type failed, due to r14-159-g03cebd304955a6. This was fixed in r14-205-g83470a5cd4c3d2, at which time there the big regression is seen for the first time. That is also the "cause" for the commit, because applying that commit to r14-158-g7d115e01411156 shows the same number as for r14-205-g83470a5cd4c3d2. Actually, it's the testsuite part of that patch, because with that reverted the execution time backs down to 0.33 seconds. IOW, this while PR is /testsuites. Not sure what to do to improve the execution time, as plain disabling the using "signed_rep_t = __int128;" by making the first line "+#if 0 && __SIZEOF_INT128__" yields /x/testsuite/std/ranges/iota/max_size_type.cc:36: note: the comparison reduces to '(16 == 8)' Maybe the higher number for the execution time is actually the "right" one and the range should be cut down to -100..100 for *all* targets? HNY!
