[Bug optimization/9767] explicit instantiation of class members unoptimized?

["jh at suse dot cz" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.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=9767



------- Additional Comments From jh at suse dot cz  2003-07-30 15:00 -------
Subject: Re:  explicit instantiation of class members unoptimized?

> PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
> 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9767
> 
> 
> 
> ------- Additional Comments From bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org  2003-07-29 22:45 -------
> Oh really......... veeeeery interesting.
> 
> This may make a substantial difference in libstdc++ runtime performance. Can all
> of libstdc++ and the libstdc++ testsuite be run with this flag?
Yes.  You may even hack opts.c to enable unit-at-a-time at -O2 and get
practically useable compiler.
I hope I will make unit-at-a-time by default at -O2 for 3.4 but until
this happens (or in case I hit the wall somewhere) we can compile
libstdc++ with it.  The resulting library is few % bigger that is quite
non-standard (usually I get code size reduction from c++ code in
unit-at-a-time).  It would be nice to understand the reason.

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