[Bug optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[Bug optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[pinskia@physics.uc.edu]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361


pinskia@physics.uc.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|---                         |3.3.1

[Bug optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[pinskia@physics.uc.edu]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361



------- Additional Comments From pinskia@physics.uc.edu  2003-06-13 19:00 -------
It loooks like gcc is walking the tree too much which slows down the complation, I will look into 
when it is doing it, aka inlining or another time.

[Bug optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[pinskia@physics.uc.edu]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361



------- Additional Comments From pinskia@physics.uc.edu  2003-06-13 19:29 -------
I found one of the problems with walking the trees too much, finish_function calls 
calls_setjmp_p when inlining is turned off which is not needed.  This was added with this 
patch:
1999-12-05  Mark Mitchell  <mark@codesourcery.com>

        * decl.c (init_decl_processing): Set flag_inline_trees if
        !flag_no_inline.

        * cp-tree.h (calls_setjmp_p): Declare.
        * decl.c (finish_function): Mark functions that call setjmp as
        uninlinable.
        * optimize.c (calls_setjmp_r): New function.
        (calls_setjmp_p): Likewise.

There is an easy fix for this one is not to call setjmp if flag_inline_trees is non-zero.

[Bug optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361



------- Additional Comments From s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl  2003-06-13 19:47 -------
Subject: Re:  [3.3/3.4 regression] C++ compile-time
 performance regression

Andrew,

If you are right about all those tree walks, check out my fix for 1687 (3.3 branch only, 3.4 is in the works).
http://gcc.gnu.org/PR1687.  The idea is to simply use walk_tree_without_duplicates.  Our front ends tend to produce horrible convoluted trees that makr walk_tree walks really slow sometimes.

Gr.
Steven

[Bug optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[pinskia@physics.uc.edu]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361



------- Additional Comments From pinskia@physics.uc.edu  2003-06-13 19:52 -------
I can do better then using walk_tree_without_duplicates if no optimizations, I do not have to look 
at all if there is no need to aka no inlining is requested (this is just for the -O0 case) which means 
3.4 might be faster then 3.0.4 which is tested. Patch in the works will test tonight.

[Bug optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[s dot bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361



------- Additional Comments From s dot bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl  2003-06-19 21:58 -------
Subject: Re:  [3.3/3.4 regression] C++ compile-time
 performance regression

pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu wrote:

>PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
>
>http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
>
>
>pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu changed:
>
>           What    |Removed                     |Added
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  BugsThisDependsOn|                            |1687
>
No it does not.

[Bug optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361



------- Additional Comments From dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu  2003-06-20 21:17 -------
As shown in:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2003-06/msg01596.html
a significant number of insns generated (about 1/3 of the total)  for
generate-3.4 are NOTE_INSN_DELETED. 
I am not sure if this is a regression or not, but generating less useless insns 
should help somewhat, so this might be an interesting data point.

[Bug optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361



------- Additional Comments From pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu  2003-06-24 22:37 -------
With the new version of the CHUD tools (beta version) which give backtraces from the 
top-down, I see that most of the time is spent in for_each_template_parm and the related 
functions for -O0 (not taking GC into account).

[Bug optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361


steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|3.3.1                       |3.4


------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2003-07-11 23:42 -------
Yeah yeah yeah, so g++ has been slowing down since, well, forever.  But no way
this will be fixed for 3.3.1, or 3.3.2 for that matter.  For 3.4 we're doing
much better already and we still have a few months to find some speed-ups.

[ Damn I wish Apple had a reputation for delivering what they promise.  Then
  we would have a 6x faster GCC soon :-)  ]

[Bug optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361


steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|3.4                         |3.3.1


------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2003-07-12 20:06 -------
Target milestone moved back again at the request of Gerald.

[Bug optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361


steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  BugsThisDependsOn|                            |11545

[Bug optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361

Bug 8361 depends on bug 11545, which changed state.

Bug 11545 Summary: [3.4 regression] Segmentation fault when marking cgraph_node in unit-at-a-time mode
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11545

           What    |Old Value                   |New Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED

[Bug optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361


mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|3.3.1                       |3.3.2


------- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org  2003-07-23 22:50 -------
Postponed, yet again -- until GCC 3.3.2 at least.

Nathan is working on a major improvement to type-comparison and
template-matching performance, but it requires the elimination of a GNU
extension.  We've now agreed to eliminate that extension (default arguments on
function types), but that means we have to deprecate it in GCC 3.4 and remove it
in GCC 3.5, unless people are willing to move up the removal to GCC 3.4.

[Bug optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[gdr at integrable-solutions dot net]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361



------- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net  2003-07-23 23:11 -------
Subject: Re:  [3.3/3.4 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

"mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:

| Nathan is working on a major improvement to type-comparison and
| template-matching performance, but it requires the elimination of a GNU
| extension.  We've now agreed to eliminate that extension (default arguments on
| function types), but that means we have to deprecate it in GCC 3.4 and remove it
| in GCC 3.5, unless people are willing to move up the removal to GCC 3.4.

That deprecation was raised ages ago.  I vote for its removal in GCC-3.4.

-- Gaby

[Bug optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361



------- Additional Comments From pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu  2003-07-23 23:24 -------
I vote for its removal in 3.4 since it fixes PR 4205, PR 4908 as nobody knew of the 
extension.

[Bug optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[gerald at gcc dot gnu dot org]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361



------- Additional Comments From gerald at gcc dot gnu dot org  2003-07-23 23:38 -------
Given that the new parser in GCC 3.4 will "break" (note that quotes!) many/most C++ 
applications one way or the other anyway, removing such a language extension from 
G++ seem okay in the 3.4 timeframe (and even more so if it really blocks important 
improvements).

[Bug optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[bangerth at dealii dot org]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361



------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org  2003-07-24 14:29 -------
I'm not a maintainer, but if asked I'd vote for abandoning the extension as
well. I'm pretty sure more people would think of a bug in the compiler than
an intentional feature if they encountered it in real life.

And, yes, just as Gerald said: 3.4 is _the_ time to get rid of cruft in the
C++ compiler.

W.

[Bug optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-01-14 03:22 -------
Some improvements lately made by Jan.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361

[Bug optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[giovannibajo at libero dot it]

-- 
Bug 8361 depends on bug 13479, which changed state.

Bug 13479 Summary: [3.4 regression] 20-30% compile-time regression with template-heavy code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13479

           What    |Old Value                   |New Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |INVALID

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361

[Bug optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2003-12-29 15:40 -------
Zdenek's new dominator interface helps, see: 
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-12/msg02164.html 

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361

[Bug optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361


mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|3.3.2                       |3.4


------- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org  2003-10-16 02:39 -------
Well, here we go postponing this PR yet again...  This time until GCC 3.4.

[Bug optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[pinskia@physics.uc.edu]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361



------- Additional Comments From pinskia@physics.uc.edu  2003-05-23 15:31 -------
This bug can be helped by fixing bug 10944 <http://gcc.gnu.org/PR10944>.



------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[pinskia@physics.uc.edu]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361



------- Additional Comments From pinskia@physics.uc.edu  2003-05-23 15:25 -------
For powerpc-apple-darwin and 3.4, I needed to edit the generate-3.4.ii file and change size_t to 
be  unsigned long from unsigned int.



------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.