--- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2004-12-28
21:00 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] 24% C++ compile-time regression
in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
New comparison is here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-12/msg01157.html
Good work!
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-23
11:28 ---
Karel, your latest comparison is almost a month old (it was
here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-11/msg01157.html), and
we've fixed a few compile time bottlenecks since then. Can
you spare some cycles and
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-23
11:30 ---
It's interesting that -O1 is consistently slower than previous
releases. Perhaps we should turn off some of the more costly
tree passes at -O1, such as iterating in DOM, and the expensive
loop
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-04
17:54 ---
tree remove redundant PHIs: 0.34 ( 2%) usr 0.02 ( 0%) sys 0.34 ( 1%) wall
tree SSA rewrite : 0.42 ( 3%) usr 0.06 ( 1%) sys 0.62 ( 3%) wall
tree SSA other: 0.88 ( 6%) usr 0.61
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-27
00:39 ---
Anybody want to do new timings for typecode.ii at -O1 because I think that
testcase is now fixed?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278
--- Additional Comments From belyshev at lubercy dot com 2004-11-27 03:35
---
3.4.4 4.0.0 delta
-
-O0 8.2 7.1 -13%
-O1 11.0 16.5 50%
-O2 23.3 21.8 -6%
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-25 12:55
---
Rewording summary because now we are only 23%:
File342-O0 400-O0 Delta% 342-O1 400-O1 Delta% 342-O2 400-O2 Delta%
typecode.cc 9.097.6518.82 13.53 17.73 -23.69 32.95
--- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2004-10-25 13:06
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] 24% C++ compile-time regression
in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
Yes, but this only apply to typecode.cc. If you consider ir.cc, you will
need to
--- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2004-10-25 13:12
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] 24% C++ compile-time regression
in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
Please have a look into http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13776
for
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-25 14:07
---
For ir.cc, does -fno-threadsafe-statics help if so this is a non bug (in that c++
front-end has changed
to output more functions so what does the middle-end/back-end expect but slower
compile time for
--
Bug 17278 depends on bug 17707, which changed state.
Bug 17707 Summary: [4.0 Regression] O(N^2) in cgraph_reset_static_var_maps
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17707
What|Old Value |New Value
11 matches
Mail list logo
