[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

[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

[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

[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

[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] [3.3/3.4/3.5 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[gerald at pfeifer dot com]

------- Additional Comments From gerald at pfeifer dot com  2004-01-21 18:28 -------
Some additional benchmark data (which will soon be outdated, and for the better
it seems) by work Jan is doing.

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-01/msg00657.html

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Last reconfirmed|2003-12-19 06:46:21         |2004-01-21 18:28:31
               date|                            |


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

[Bug optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/3.5 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 
Bug 8361 depends on bug 10944, which changed state.

Bug 10944 Summary: alloc_page in ggc-page.c is slow
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10944

           What    |Old Value                   |New Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|WAITING                     |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |WONTFIX

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

[Bug optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/3.5 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-03-13 16:38 -------
This PR just keeps hanging around.  How sad.  But, no more work will be done
this before 3.4.0, so I've postponed until 3.4.1.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|3.4.0                       |3.4.1


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

[Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/3.5 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-06-18 23:39 -------
Postponed until GCC 3.4.2.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|3.4.1                       |3.4.2


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

[Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/3.5 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[gerald at pfeifer dot com]

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  BugsThisDependsOn|                            |16131


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

[Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/3.5 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 
Bug 8361 depends on bug 16131, which changed state.

Bug 16131 Summary: [3.5 Regression] internal compiler error: in create_tmp_var, at gimplify.c:361
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16131

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

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

[Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/3.5 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-06-25 07:43 -------
For powerpc-apple-darwin I posted two patches which helps at -O0 which goes from 18.0 seconds to 
15.3 seconds:
<http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-06/msg02029.html>
<http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-06/msg02031.html>
Note these patches solve problems specific to darwin and only helps there.

-- 


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

[Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/3.5 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-08-29 18:47 -------
Postponed until GCC 3.4.3.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|3.4.2                       |3.4.3


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

[Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 
Bug 8361 depends on bug 17497, which changed state.

Bug 17497 Summary: [4.0 Regression] ICE: "address taken, but ADDRESSABLE bit not set"
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17497

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

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

[Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 
Bug 8361 depends on bug 17483, which changed state.

Bug 17483 Summary: [4.0 regression] ICE at -O3 when passing a reference.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17483

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

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

[Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-09-24 15:01 -------
This PR is unlikely to be closed ever, but some fresh numbers ought to be taken
for mainline.  Unfortunately I don't have even a fraction of the compilers in
the PR description here (only 3.3.4-debian and mainline), so no, I'm not
volunteering to do it. :-)

Paolo

-- 


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

[Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-10-26 12:34 -------
The updated testcase doesn't compile on i686-pc-linux-gnu, with what looks to be
target independent errors. Here are the first few,

/sw/gcc-3.0.4/include/g++-v3/bits/stl_iterator.h:452: error: type/value mismatch
at argument 1 in template parameter list for '
template<class _Category, class _Tp, class _Distance, class _Pointer, class
_Reference> struct std::iterator'
/sw/gcc-3.0.4/include/g++-v3/bits/stl_iterator.h:452: error:   expected a type,
got 'std::iterator_traits<_Iterator>::iterator_
category'
/sw/gcc-3.0.4/include/g++-v3/bits/stl_iterator.h:452: error: type/value mismatch
at argument 2 in template parameter list for '
template<class _Category, class _Tp, class _Distance, class _Pointer, class
_Reference> struct std::iterator'
/sw/gcc-3.0.4/include/g++-v3/bits/stl_iterator.h:452: error:   expected a type,
got 'std::iterator_traits<_Iterator>::value_typ
e'
/sw/gcc-3.0.4/include/g++-v3/bits/stl_iterator.h:452: error: type/value mismatch
at argument 3 in template parameter list for '
template<class _Category, class _Tp, class _Distance, class _Pointer, class
_Reference> struct std::iterator'
/sw/gcc-3.0.4/include/g++-v3/bits/stl_iterator.h:452: error:   expected a type,
got 'std::iterator_traits<_Iterator>::differenc
e_type'
/sw/gcc-3.0.4/include/g++-v3/bits/stl_iterator.h:452: error: type/value mismatch
at argument 4 in template parameter list for '
template<class _Category, class _Tp, class _Distance, class _Pointer, class
_Reference> struct std::iterator'
/sw/gcc-3.0.4/include/g++-v3/bits/stl_iterator.h:452: error:   expected a type,
got 'std::iterator_traits<_Iterator>::pointer'
/sw/gcc-3.0.4/include/g++-v3/bits/stl_iterator.h:452: error: type/value mismatch
at argument 5 in template parameter list for '
template<class _Category, class _Tp, class _Distance, class _Pointer, class
_Reference> struct std::iterator'
/sw/gcc-3.0.4/include/g++-v3/bits/stl_iterator.h:452: error:   expected a type,
got 'std::iterator_traits<_Iterator>::reference
'

what's up?

-- 


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

[Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[gerald at pfeifer dot com]

------- Additional Comments From gerald at pfeifer dot com  2004-10-26 13:34 -------
Is there anything left to do wrt. the testcases?  I saw that Nathan made
some (description-only?) changes.

-- 


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

[Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-10-26 13:37 -------
No, Nathan just got confused on which attachment to take.

-- 


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

[Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-10-30 19:30 -------
I'm not sure how interesting it is to keep this PR open.  

I'll be postponing it every time we get to a release for the forseeable future.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|3.4.3                       |4.1.0


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

[Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-11-12 12:52 -------
GCC 3.4 (CVS today) takes 35s usr on my machine.
GCC 4.0 (CVS today) takes 46s usr on the same machine.

The difference is entirely in DOM, into-SSA and SSA-other
which is really also into-SSA:

			usr	sys	wall
dominator optimization	3.16	0.02	3.26
tree SSA rewrite	3.24	0.01	3.27
tree SSA other		3.47	0.09	3.40


Per-pass and cummulative time spent (top 10 only):
integration             1.09    2.30%   48.88%
tree PHI insertion      1.21    2.56%   51.44%
loop invariant motion   1.30    2.75%   54.18%
global alloc            1.30    2.75%   56.93%
CSE                     1.72    3.63%   60.56%
parser                  3.05    6.44%   67.00%
dominator optimization  3.16    6.68%   73.68%
tree SSA rewrite        3.24    6.84%   80.52%
tree SSA other          3.47    7.33%   87.85%
expand                  5.75    12.15%  100.00%


Flat profile:
                                                                               
                
Each sample counts as 0.01 seconds.
  %   cumulative   self              self     total
 time   seconds   seconds    calls   s/call   s/call  name
  1.82      8.19     8.19 13878865     0.00     0.00  is_gimple_reg
  1.50     14.95     6.76     6594     0.00     0.00  synth_mult
  1.28     20.69     5.74 12785589     0.00     0.00  ggc_alloc_stat
  1.27     26.38     5.69  3433257     0.00     0.00  free_df_for_stmt
  1.25     32.01     5.63 16868123     0.00     0.00  bitmap_set_bit
  1.19     37.35     5.34  4846931     0.00     0.00  get_stmt_operands
  1.17     42.59     5.24    62034     0.00     0.00  alloc_page
  1.15     47.75     5.16     3559     0.00     0.01  compute_immediate_uses
  0.99     52.18     4.43  6408238     0.00     0.00  htab_find_slot_with_hash
  0.98     56.60     4.42  2104725     0.00     0.00  compute_immediate_uses_for_phi
  0.93     60.76     4.16   821051     0.00     0.00  gt_ggc_mx_lang_tree_node
  0.91     64.83     4.07  7802758     0.00     0.00  register_new_def
  0.90     68.87     4.04   951728     0.00     0.00  rewrite_stmt
  0.88     72.82     3.95 30035694     0.00     0.00  bitmap_bit_p
  0.84     76.61     3.79   574332     0.00     0.00  cse_insn
  0.81     80.26     3.65   196671     0.00     0.00  compute_global_livein
  0.81     83.91     3.65   177070     0.00     0.00  insert_phi_nodes_for
  0.81     87.54     3.63  2697441     0.00     0.00  for_each_rtx
  0.81     91.16     3.62  1079773     0.00     0.00  check_phi_redundancy

which is a different way of saying "all over the map" :-(



-- 


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

[Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-11-18 18:56 -------
I noticed today that my patch for PR 18507 also helps this testcase.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  BugsThisDependsOn|                            |18507


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

[Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 
Bug 8361 depends on bug 18507, which changed state.

Bug 18507 Summary: block_defs_stack varrray should not be GC'ed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18507

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

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

[Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-12-04 16:31 -------
Here is the current results for 3.3.2 vs the mainline:
                    -O0      -O1       -O2      -O3
3.3.2          28.93      42.81   61.13    58.140
mainline     11.06      43.18   54.86    58.35

So we are faster at -O0 but slightly slower at optimization levels  but if we trust the numbers for 3.0.4 
compared to 3.3, we are still 30% slower than 3.0.4 except at -O0.

-- 


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

[Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-12-18 04:13 -------
(In reply to comment #39)
> Here is the current results for 3.3.2 vs the mainline:
Now I am getting results that -O3 is faster than -O2, that is not right.

-- 


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

[Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-12-23 11:16 -------
Gerald, you think you can find some cycles to see where we
stand?  I'm very curious how we do for this file, and for
the rest of your test suite.

(It'd be nice if you can compare mainline with some other
official FSF build (3.3, 3.4), because our system compilers
are profiledbootstraped so that gives a skewed picture...)


-- 


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

[Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-01-10 01:35 -------
I am now getting results which say at -O1, we are now faster than 3.3.2, could someone test to make 
sure that they get close results to mine?

-- 


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

[Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-01-16 04:50 -------
(In reply to comment #39)
> Here is the current results for 3.3.2 vs the mainline:
>                     -O0      -O1       -O2      -O3
> 3.3.2          28.93      42.81   61.13    58.140
> mainline     11.06      43.18   54.86    58.35

And more current results for the mainline on powerpc-darwin:
                      11.09      30.55    39.09   38.74

So it looks like this is fixed really and we are 40 % faster than 3.3.2 at -O1 on this testcase.
56% faster at -O2 and 50% at -O3. (which means we have caught back up to and past 3.0.4's number if 
the numbers in comment #0 scales the same on powerpc).

Someone should really do timings on x86 to make sure that they give about the same as powerpc.

-- 


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

[Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru]

------- Additional Comments From belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru  2005-01-16 14:16 -------
here is the timings for i686-pc-linux-gnu:

        3.0.5   3.2.3   3.3.6   3.4.4   4.0.0   4.0.0/3.0.5

-O0      24.5    26.0    22.4    20.5    16.9    -31%
-O1      41.8    48.3    42.8    37.3    44.8     +7%
-O2      53.4    64.9    59.0    61.6    55.9     +5%
-O3      54.5    68.8    62.8    64.8    57.2     +5%

compilers are:

3.0.5 20030502 (prerelease)
3.2.3
3.3.6 20050116 (prerelease)
3.4.4 20050116 (prerelease)
4.0.0 20050116 (experimental)

all compilers compiled by GNU C version 3.3.6 20050116 (prerelease).


-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Last reconfirmed|2004-02-25 08:21:05         |2005-01-16 14:16:42
               date|                            |


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

[Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-01-16 14:21 -------
Please don't close this bug, ever!  It's GCC nostalgia.  ;-) 

-- 


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

[Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-01-28 14:48 -------
Can someone do the timings again on x86, I think we are faster at -O1 now than previous versions and 
faster for all other optimization levels?
On ppc-darwin we speed up about 3% (-O2/-O3) to 16% (-O1) between the 15th and now.

-- 


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

[Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-01-28 15:15 -------
I will do timings with a bunch of gcc3.x compilers and gcc4.0.

-- 


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

[Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[steven@gcc.gnu.org]

------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-02-06 16:04 -------
All compilers were bootstrapped, with the following flags: 
 
"--disable-{nls,checking} --enable-languages=c,c++" 
 
Below, gcc40 is CVS HEAD.  This was on a 1.6GHz Opteron, with -m32. 
The machine has 4GB of memory so garbage collection times are zero, 
which may account for some of the rather unexpected results. 
For gcc34 and gcc40 I used generate-3.4.ii.bz2 (attachment 3) and 
for the other two I used the latest generate.ii.bz2 (attachment 4). 
 
        gcc32   gcc33   gcc34   gcc40 
-O0     16.439s 16.172s 15.223s 6.674s 
-O1     30.265s 25.115s 20.678s 20.305s 
-O2     42.678s 34.908s 34.526s 27.418s 
-O3     47.469s 47.538s 35.706s 27.896s 
 
I'll try to get numbers on a 32bits machine (i686) as well. 
 

-- 


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

[Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[steven@gcc.gnu.org]

------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-02-06 16:49 -------
Similar numbers on a 1.4GHz Xeon (i686): 
 
        gcc32   gcc33   gcc34   gcc40 
-O0     18.865s 15.107s 13.286s 10.193s 
-O1     33.511s 30.096s 24.693s 23.543s 
-O2     46.527s 42.657s 42.618s 33.549s 
-O3     49.537s 43.887s 44.056s 33.917s 
 

-- 


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

[Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[steven@gcc.gnu.org]

------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-02-06 16:54 -------
Considering the numbers from #44, #48, and #49, I think we can conclude 
that we are back to the compile times GCC 3.0 used to have.  It should 
be noted that we have a significantly larger memory foot print though, 
and some of the speedups (especially from GCC 3.2 to GCC 3.3) came from 
smaller hacks to the GC system (collect less often, etc.).  But then, 
most people just use the compiler with -O[0123] and no fancy --params 
and similar hacks, so from a user POV this bug really is fixed, mostly. 
I'm not sure if it is useful to keep this bug open any longer. 

-- 


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

[Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-02-06 18:08 -------
If you want to compare how the memory footprint has affected performance, use 
these flags in 3.3 and later:

--param ggc-min-expand=30 --param ggc-min-heapsize=4096

Those are the hardcoded values that 3.2 uses to tune how often the collector 
runs.  I would be interested to see how later versions behave when supplied 
these flags, this will simulate how fast we compile on memory constrained boxes 
relative to 3.2.

Another perhaps more interesting test (but one which will take slightly more 
effort for you) would be to see how raising these values in 3.2 will affect 
performance.  Some distros (RH?) did in fact raise them in their releases so 
users may be comparing their cranked distro gcc-3.2 to our FSF releases.

Of course since these values are hardcoded in 3.2, you'd have to rebuild that 
compiler, however I think an apples-to-apples comparsion is in order before 
closing this PR.


-- 


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

[Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[gerald at pfeifer dot com]

------- Additional Comments From gerald at pfeifer dot com  2005-02-07 23:09 -------
I had done extensive benchmarks around New Year, based on Steven's request in
comment #41.  Unfortunately I lost most of that data directly before posting
it here and couldn't repeat everything, but coincidently I could save exactly
those parts that Steven did not check now. ;-)  CVS refers to the state in
early January.

The following are for the full application which generate.ii is only one part
of, albeit a representative one.

First the time to build with -O3 and the resulting binary size:

  --------+ stripped-+ build time
  2.95    |  4577588 | 170.78 real
  3.2.3   |  4106176 | 219.70 real
  3.3 CVS |  1073280 | 209.02 real
  3.4 CVS |  1079120 | 189.82 real
  4.0 CVS |  1081776 | 164.86 real

Then some benchmarks results for the binaries; times in seconds, smaller is
better:
      
                        |   2.95 |  3.2.3 | 3.3 CVS | 3.4 CVS | 4.0 CVS |
          --------------+--------+--------+---------+---------+---------+
          STRATCOMP2-ALL|  17.96 | 127.44 |   89.51 |   21.02 |   20.47 |
         STRATCOMP-BRAVE|  77.09 |  78.33 |   77.70 |   83.33 |   82.83 |
                   2QBF1|  11.68 |  13.72 |   13.45 |   13.75 |   12.31 |
              PRIMEIMPL2|   7.52 |   8.05 |    7.21 |    7.00 |    7.42 |
                ANCESTOR|  70.44 |  69.91 |   71.22 |   67.36 |   61.36 |
           3COL-SIMPLEX1|   3.67 |   3.81 |    3.86 |    3.77 |    3.52 |
             3COL-LADDER|  77.99 |  81.11 |   81.72 |   73.23 |   71.58 |
           3COL-N-LADDER|   1.68 |   2.82 |    2.76 |    1.81 |    1.81 |
            3COL-RANDOM1|   8.38 |   8.33 |    7.84 |    8.13 |    8.61 |
              HP-RANDOM1|   6.52 |   7.29 |    7.19 |    7.90 |    7.65 |
           HAMCYCLE-FREE|  68.46 |  88.72 |   82.77 |   64.63 |   66.40 |
                 DECOMP2|   7.75 |   8.48 |    8.98 |    9.87 |    8.80 |
            BW-P5-Esra-a|  34.76 |  36.23 |   35.20 |   31.39 |   31.41 |
            BW-P8-nopush|  90.17 |  89.79 |   88.17 |   81.97 |   83.51 |
           BW-P6-pushbin|  60.23 |  62.86 |   61.34 |   59.09 |   59.94 |
         BW-P7-nopushbin|  84.94 |  87.46 |   83.80 |   79.93 |   81.23 |
                  3SAT-1|  23.91 |  24.91 |   22.55 |   22.23 |   23.19 |
       3SAT-1-CONSTRAINT|  13.97 |  14.76 |   13.51 |   13.37 |   14.15 |
            HANOI-Towers| 737.91 | 632.95 |  636.27 |  680.56 |  661.77 |
         RAMSEY(3,7)!=21|  68.93 |  73.92 |   71.77 |   74.71 |   73.59 |
 RAMSEY(3,7)!=21, normal|  83.92 |  84.02 |   83.32 |   81.23 |   79.21 |
         RAMSEY(4,6)!=25|  92.53 |  99.69 |   95.06 |   96.33 |   90.40 |
         RAMSEY(4,6)!=26| 130.68 | 142.55 |  134.61 |  134.75 |  124.73 |
                 CRISTAL|   5.75 |   5.98 |    5.67 |    5.56 |    5.29 |
                 HANOI-K|1176.06 |1289.65 | 1252.41 | 1154.43 | 1082.85 |
               21-QUEENS|   7.09 |   7.12 |    6.30 |    6.30 |    6.31 |
       MSTDir[V=13,A=40]|  14.34 |  13.02 |   12.34 |   11.50 |   11.69 |
       MSTDir[V=15,A=40]|  14.20 |  12.98 |   12.43 |   11.47 |   11.65 |
     MSTUndir[V=13,A=40]|   7.18 |   7.07 |    6.53 |    6.14 |    6.34 |
     MSTUndir[V=15,A=40]| 116.86 | 113.12 |  104.71 |   99.37 |  103.56 |
          TIMETABLING_4C| 137.64 | 140.79 |  138.66 |  173.87 |  165.50 |
      SCHOOL_TIMETABLING| 328.57 |    -   |     -   |  329.02 |  310.30 | 

So, in terms of build time and binary size we are fine, and also benchmark
performance is nicely improved on average (with some regressions, though).

For whether we can close this now, I'll just refer to comment #32 and
comment #45 (and Kaveh's note on memory usage).

-- 


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

[Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.4/4.0/4.1 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-07-23 21:58 -------
We have regressioned since the last time someone reported on this one:
-O0   -O1   -O2   -O3
11.1  41.7   55.6  65.9

For -O3, the following passes stand out for compile time:
 tree PTA              :   4.04 ( 6%) usr   0.11 ( 1%) sys   4.45 ( 5%) wall    9319 kB ( 2%) ggc
 tree alias analysis   :   5.34 ( 7%) usr   1.42 ( 9%) sys   7.07 ( 8%) wall   11463 kB ( 2%) ggc
 parser                :   4.48 ( 6%) usr   2.16 (14%) sys   7.11 ( 8%) wall   95214 kB (18%) ggc
 tree operand scan     :   4.28 ( 6%) usr   2.86 (19%) sys   7.41 ( 8%) wall   22145 kB ( 4%) ggc
 dominator optimization:   3.60 ( 5%) usr   0.21 ( 1%) sys   4.02 ( 4%) wall   16448 kB ( 3%) ggc
 expand                :   3.13 ( 4%) usr   0.27 ( 2%) sys   3.53 ( 4%) wall   34210 kB ( 6%) ggc

For memory usage:
 integration           :   2.70 ( 4%) usr   0.30 ( 2%) sys   3.24 ( 4%) wall  124856 kB (24%) ggc
 parser                :   4.48 ( 6%) usr   2.16 (14%) sys   7.11 ( 8%) wall   95214 kB (18%) ggc


At -O0 compile time:
 parser                :   4.55 (33%) usr   2.00 (29%) sys   6.75 (31%) wall   94454 kB (50%) ggc
 name lookup           :   1.82 (13%) usr   2.98 (43%) sys   5.02 (23%) wall   17923 kB ( 9%) ggc
 expand                :   1.57 (11%) usr   0.40 ( 6%) sys   2.04 ( 9%) wall   33674 kB (18%) ggc
 global alloc          :   1.22 ( 9%) usr   0.06 ( 1%) sys   1.36 ( 6%) wall    8858 kB ( 5%) ggc

for memory usage, just the parser.

at -O1:
 parser                :   4.23 ( 9%) usr   2.23 (17%) sys   6.94 (11%) wall   94371 kB (22%) ggc
 integration           :   2.46 ( 5%) usr   0.29 ( 2%) sys   2.70 ( 4%) wall  104683 kB (25%) ggc
 tree PTA              :   3.48 ( 7%) usr   0.09 ( 1%) sys   3.76 ( 6%) wall    8378 kB ( 2%) ggc
 tree alias analysis   :   3.22 ( 7%) usr   1.23 ( 9%) sys   4.69 ( 7%) wall    6203 kB ( 1%) ggc
 tree SSA incremental  :   2.52 ( 5%) usr   0.30 ( 2%) sys   3.06 ( 5%) wall    3278 kB ( 1%) ggc
 tree operand scan     :   3.56 ( 7%) usr   2.32 (18%) sys   6.40 (10%) wall   18232 kB ( 4%) ggc

memory usage:
 integration           :   2.46 ( 5%) usr   0.29 ( 2%) sys   2.70 ( 4%) wall  104683 kB (25%) ggc
 parser                :   4.23 ( 9%) usr   2.23 (17%) sys   6.94 (11%) wall   94371 kB (22%) ggc


-O2:
 expand                :   2.90 ( 5%) usr   0.24 ( 2%) sys   3.02 ( 4%) wall   31476 kB ( 7%) ggc
 tree SSA incremental  :   2.67 ( 4%) usr   0.38 ( 3%) sys   3.30 ( 4%) wall    6252 kB ( 1%) ggc
 tree operand scan     :   3.76 ( 6%) usr   2.49 (18%) sys   6.05 ( 8%) wall   19509 kB ( 4%) ggc
 dominator optimization:   2.91 ( 5%) usr   0.13 ( 1%) sys   3.14 ( 4%) wall   14117 kB ( 3%) ggc
 tree PTA              :   3.46 ( 6%) usr   0.15 ( 1%) sys   3.79 ( 5%) wall    8394 kB ( 2%) ggc
 tree alias analysis   :   3.97 ( 6%) usr   1.40 (10%) sys   5.65 ( 7%) wall   10165 kB ( 2%) ggc
 parser                :   4.41 ( 7%) usr   2.34 (17%) sys   7.21 ( 9%) wall   94371 kB (20%) ggc
 integration           :   2.48 ( 4%) usr   0.23 ( 2%) sys   2.70 ( 3%) wall  104710 kB (22%) ggc

memory usage:
 parser                :   4.41 ( 7%) usr   2.34 (17%) sys   7.21 ( 9%) wall   94371 kB (20%) ggc
 integration           :   2.48 ( 4%) usr   0.23 ( 2%) sys   2.70 ( 3%) wall  104710 kB (22%) ggc


-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Last reconfirmed|2005-01-16 14:16:42         |2005-07-23 21:58:55
               date|                            |


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

[Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.4/4.0/4.1 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-09-18 19:17 -------
Current numbers for 4.0.0 vs 4.1.0:
pc64:~/src/pr8361> time ~/onetest.release/bin/gcc pr8361.ii -S -m32 -O1
21.137u 0.399s 0:21.89 98.3%    0+0k 0+0io 3pf+0w
pc64:~/src/pr8361> time gcc-4.0 pr8361.ii -S -m32 -O1
14.059u 0.269s 0:14.46 98.9%    0+0k 0+0io 2pf+0w

This on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.

-ftime-report for 4.1.0:

Execution times (seconds)
 garbage collection    :   0.35 ( 2%) usr   0.01 ( 1%) sys   0.37 ( 2%) wall       0 kB ( 0%) ggc
 callgraph construction:   0.13 ( 1%) usr   0.01 ( 1%) sys   0.18 ( 1%) wall    4538 kB ( 1%) ggc
 callgraph optimization:   0.01 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.03 ( 0%) wall    1193 kB ( 0%) ggc
 ipa reference         :   0.07 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.08 ( 0%) wall     273 kB ( 0%) ggc
 ipa pure const        :   0.04 ( 0%) usr   0.01 ( 1%) sys   0.04 ( 0%) wall       0 kB ( 0%) ggc
 cfg construction      :   0.02 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.04 ( 0%) wall    1607 kB ( 0%) ggc
 cfg cleanup           :   0.14 ( 1%) usr   0.01 ( 1%) sys   0.13 ( 1%) wall     103 kB ( 0%) ggc
 trivially dead code   :   0.10 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.17 ( 1%) wall       0 kB ( 0%) ggc
 life analysis         :   0.52 ( 2%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.52 ( 2%) wall    3245 kB ( 0%) ggc
 life info update      :   0.04 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.04 ( 0%) wall     292 kB ( 0%) ggc
 alias analysis        :   0.12 ( 1%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.17 ( 1%) wall    2150 kB ( 0%) ggc
 register scan         :   0.16 ( 1%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.08 ( 0%) wall     211 kB ( 0%) ggc
 rebuild jump labels   :   0.03 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.03 ( 0%) wall       1 kB ( 0%) ggc
 preprocessing         :   0.13 ( 1%) usr   0.15 ( 8%) sys   0.28 ( 1%) wall     591 kB ( 0%) ggc
 parser                :   1.80 ( 8%) usr   0.42 (23%) sys   2.35 (10%) wall  154459 kB (23%) ggc
 name lookup           :   0.57 ( 3%) usr   0.46 (25%) sys   0.97 ( 4%) wall   31048 kB ( 5%) ggc
 inline heuristics     :   0.07 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.06 ( 0%) wall    7605 kB ( 1%) ggc
 integration           :   1.14 ( 5%) usr   0.01 ( 1%) sys   1.14 ( 5%) wall  162853 kB (24%) ggc
 tree gimplify         :   0.30 ( 1%) usr   0.02 ( 1%) sys   0.28 ( 1%) wall   14133 kB ( 2%) ggc
 tree eh               :   0.03 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.00 ( 0%) wall    1795 kB ( 0%) ggc
 tree CFG construction :   0.02 ( 0%) usr   0.01 ( 1%) sys   0.04 ( 0%) wall   11718 kB ( 2%) ggc
 tree CFG cleanup      :   0.49 ( 2%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.68 ( 3%) wall    3669 kB ( 1%) ggc
 tree copy propagation :   0.60 ( 3%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.63 ( 3%) wall    1441 kB ( 0%) ggc
 tree store copy prop  :   0.12 ( 1%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.10 ( 0%) wall     181 kB ( 0%) ggc
 tree find ref. vars   :   0.25 ( 1%) usr   0.01 ( 1%) sys   0.29 ( 1%) wall   22675 kB ( 3%) ggc
 tree PTA              :   1.61 ( 7%) usr   0.02 ( 1%) sys   1.72 ( 7%) wall   10266 kB ( 2%) ggc
 tree alias analysis   :   1.05 ( 5%) usr   0.15 ( 8%) sys   1.23 ( 5%) wall   11045 kB ( 2%) ggc
 tree PHI insertion    :   0.29 ( 1%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.29 ( 1%) wall   16546 kB ( 2%) ggc
 tree SSA rewrite      :   0.65 ( 3%) usr   0.01 ( 1%) sys   0.76 ( 3%) wall   30896 kB ( 5%) ggc
 tree SSA other        :   0.15 ( 1%) usr   0.06 ( 3%) sys   0.20 ( 1%) wall     580 kB ( 0%) ggc
 tree SSA incremental  :   1.58 ( 7%) usr   0.01 ( 1%) sys   1.34 ( 6%) wall    6475 kB ( 1%) ggc
 tree operand scan     :   1.15 ( 5%) usr   0.25 (14%) sys   1.47 ( 6%) wall   15753 kB ( 2%) ggc
 dominator optimization:   0.80 ( 4%) usr   0.04 ( 2%) sys   0.84 ( 4%) wall   14884 kB ( 2%) ggc
 tree SRA              :   0.22 ( 1%) usr   0.02 ( 1%) sys   0.20 ( 1%) wall   11416 kB ( 2%) ggc
 tree STORE-CCP        :   0.05 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.04 ( 0%) wall     165 kB ( 0%) ggc
 tree CCP              :   0.21 ( 1%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.19 ( 1%) wall     601 kB ( 0%) ggc
 tree split crit edges :   0.03 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.03 ( 0%) wall    6441 kB ( 1%) ggc
 tree reassociation    :   0.05 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.02 ( 0%) wall       1 kB ( 0%) ggc
 tree FRE              :   0.51 ( 2%) usr   0.02 ( 1%) sys   0.53 ( 2%) wall   16049 kB ( 2%) ggc
 tree code sinking     :   0.06 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.08 ( 0%) wall      54 kB ( 0%) ggc
 tree linearize phis   :   0.00 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.01 ( 0%) wall      16 kB ( 0%) ggc
 tree forward propagate:   0.04 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.14 ( 1%) wall    3515 kB ( 1%) ggc
 tree conservative DCE :   0.39 ( 2%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.49 ( 2%) wall       0 kB ( 0%) ggc
 tree aggressive DCE   :   0.06 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.08 ( 0%) wall       0 kB ( 0%) ggc
 tree DSE              :   0.11 ( 1%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.07 ( 0%) wall      85 kB ( 0%) ggc
 PHI merge             :   0.01 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.01 ( 0%) wall     966 kB ( 0%) ggc
 tree loop bounds      :   0.14 ( 1%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.05 ( 0%) wall    1796 kB ( 0%) ggc
 loop invariant motion :   0.04 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.08 ( 0%) wall     158 kB ( 0%) ggc
 tree canonical iv     :   0.03 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.03 ( 0%) wall     955 kB ( 0%) ggc
 scev constant prop    :   0.00 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.05 ( 0%) wall     721 kB ( 0%) ggc
 complete unrolling    :   0.00 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.02 ( 0%) wall    1340 kB ( 0%) ggc
 tree iv optimization  :   0.15 ( 1%) usr   0.01 ( 1%) sys   0.18 ( 1%) wall    7715 kB ( 1%) ggc
 tree loop init        :   0.11 ( 1%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.08 ( 0%) wall       6 kB ( 0%) ggc
 tree copy headers     :   0.06 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.05 ( 0%) wall    6478 kB ( 1%) ggc
 tree SSA uncprop      :   0.02 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.00 ( 0%) wall       0 kB ( 0%) ggc
 tree SSA to normal    :   0.31 ( 1%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.41 ( 2%) wall    3411 kB ( 1%) ggc
 tree rename SSA copies:   0.10 ( 0%) usr   0.01 ( 1%) sys   0.16 ( 1%) wall       0 kB ( 0%) ggc
 dominance frontiers   :   0.07 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.09 ( 0%) wall       0 kB ( 0%) ggc
 expand                :   1.28 ( 6%) usr   0.02 ( 1%) sys   1.12 ( 5%) wall   43499 kB ( 7%) ggc
 varconst              :   0.08 ( 0%) usr   0.02 ( 1%) sys   0.05 ( 0%) wall     403 kB ( 0%) ggc
 jump                  :   0.05 ( 0%) usr   0.01 ( 1%) sys   0.06 ( 0%) wall    1203 kB ( 0%) ggc
 CSE                   :   0.22 ( 1%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.20 ( 1%) wall     647 kB ( 0%) ggc
 loop analysis         :   0.10 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.12 ( 1%) wall    1936 kB ( 0%) ggc
 branch prediction     :   0.20 ( 1%) usr   0.01 ( 1%) sys   0.18 ( 1%) wall    1979 kB ( 0%) ggc
 flow analysis         :   0.01 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.01 ( 0%) wall       2 kB ( 0%) ggc
 combiner              :   0.46 ( 2%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.50 ( 2%) wall    5390 kB ( 1%) ggc
 if-conversion         :   0.08 ( 0%) usr   0.01 ( 1%) sys   0.06 ( 0%) wall     308 kB ( 0%) ggc
 local alloc           :   0.25 ( 1%) usr   0.01 ( 1%) sys   0.26 ( 1%) wall    1622 kB ( 0%) ggc
 global alloc          :   0.85 ( 4%) usr   0.01 ( 1%) sys   0.78 ( 3%) wall    9331 kB ( 1%) ggc
 reload CSE regs       :   0.17 ( 1%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.17 ( 1%) wall    2917 kB ( 0%) ggc
 flow 2                :   0.05 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.03 ( 0%) wall    1058 kB ( 0%) ggc
 if-conversion 2       :   0.07 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.03 ( 0%) wall      37 kB ( 0%) ggc
 rename registers      :   0.14 ( 1%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.15 ( 1%) wall      21 kB ( 0%) ggc
 machine dep reorg     :   0.12 ( 1%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.19 ( 1%) wall      86 kB ( 0%) ggc
 shorten branches      :   0.02 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.03 ( 0%) wall       0 kB ( 0%) ggc
 final                 :   0.24 ( 1%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.17 ( 1%) wall    1199 kB ( 0%) ggc
 symout                :   0.00 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.01 ( 0%) wall     180 kB ( 0%) ggc
 TOTAL                 :  21.70             1.81            23.79             667733 kB

for 4.0.0:

Execution times (seconds)
 garbage collection    :   0.32 ( 2%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.32 ( 2%) wall
 callgraph construction:   0.08 ( 1%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.08 ( 0%) wall
 callgraph optimization:   0.04 ( 0%) usr   0.01 ( 1%) sys   0.04 ( 0%) wall
 cfg construction      :   0.03 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.02 ( 0%) wall
 cfg cleanup           :   0.06 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.08 ( 0%) wall
 trivially dead code   :   0.08 ( 1%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.09 ( 1%) wall
 life analysis         :   0.43 ( 3%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.44 ( 3%) wall
 life info update      :   0.05 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.13 ( 1%) wall
 alias analysis        :   0.08 ( 1%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.13 ( 1%) wall
 register scan         :   0.06 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.14 ( 1%) wall
 rebuild jump labels   :   0.03 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.02 ( 0%) wall
 preprocessing         :   0.11 ( 1%) usr   0.15 ( 9%) sys   0.22 ( 1%) wall
 parser                :   2.00 (14%) usr   0.46 (29%) sys   2.20 (13%) wall
 name lookup           :   0.49 ( 3%) usr   0.44 (28%) sys   1.12 ( 7%) wall
 integration           :   0.67 ( 5%) usr   0.03 ( 2%) sys   0.77 ( 5%) wall
 tree gimplify         :   0.23 ( 2%) usr   0.01 ( 1%) sys   0.35 ( 2%) wall
 tree eh               :   0.05 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.06 ( 0%) wall
 tree CFG construction :   0.12 ( 1%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.11 ( 1%) wall
 tree CFG cleanup      :   0.22 ( 2%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.15 ( 1%) wall
 tree find referenced vars:   0.23 ( 2%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.20 ( 1%) wall
 tree PTA              :   0.37 ( 3%) usr   0.01 ( 1%) sys   0.45 ( 3%) wall
 tree alias analysis   :   0.51 ( 3%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.56 ( 3%) wall
 tree PHI insertion    :   0.17 ( 1%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.24 ( 1%) wall
 tree SSA rewrite      :   0.54 ( 4%) usr   0.01 ( 1%) sys   0.47 ( 3%) wall
 tree SSA other        :   0.58 ( 4%) usr   0.16 (10%) sys   0.85 ( 5%) wall
 tree operand scan     :   0.51 ( 3%) usr   0.21 (13%) sys   0.68 ( 4%) wall
 dominator optimization:   0.76 ( 5%) usr   0.05 ( 3%) sys   0.66 ( 4%) wall
 tree SRA              :   0.12 ( 1%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.13 ( 1%) wall
 tree CCP              :   0.07 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.12 ( 1%) wall
 tree split crit edges :   0.04 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.04 ( 0%) wall
 tree remove redundant PHIs:   0.26 ( 2%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.33 ( 2%) wall
 tree linearize phis   :   0.00 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.01 ( 0%) wall
 tree forward propagate:   0.15 ( 1%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.12 ( 1%) wall
 tree conservative DCE :   0.26 ( 2%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.26 ( 2%) wall
 tree aggressive DCE   :   0.04 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.05 ( 0%) wall
 tree DSE              :   0.06 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.07 ( 0%) wall
 PHI merge             :   0.01 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.00 ( 0%) wall
 tree record loop bounds:   0.05 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.04 ( 0%) wall
 loop invariant motion :   0.05 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.08 ( 0%) wall
 tree canonical iv creation:   0.03 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.01 ( 0%) wall
 tree iv optimization  :   0.22 ( 2%) usr   0.01 ( 1%) sys   0.13 ( 1%) wall
 tree loop init        :   0.12 ( 1%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.05 ( 0%) wall
 tree loop fini        :   0.00 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.01 ( 0%) wall
 tree copy headers     :   0.12 ( 1%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.17 ( 1%) wall
 tree SSA to normal    :   0.33 ( 2%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.30 ( 2%) wall
 tree NRV optimization :   0.00 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.01 ( 0%) wall
 tree rename SSA copies:   0.11 ( 1%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.10 ( 1%) wall
 dominance frontiers   :   0.00 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.01 ( 0%) wall
 expand                :   0.97 ( 7%) usr   0.01 ( 1%) sys   1.06 ( 6%) wall
 varconst              :   0.04 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.11 ( 1%) wall
 jump                  :   0.04 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.03 ( 0%) wall
 CSE                   :   0.27 ( 2%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.22 ( 1%) wall
 loop analysis         :   0.08 ( 1%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.09 ( 1%) wall
 branch prediction     :   0.18 ( 1%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.19 ( 1%) wall
 flow analysis         :   0.00 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.02 ( 0%) wall
 combiner              :   0.39 ( 3%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.35 ( 2%) wall
 if-conversion         :   0.02 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.08 ( 0%) wall
 local alloc           :   0.22 ( 2%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.20 ( 1%) wall
 global alloc          :   0.64 ( 4%) usr   0.01 ( 1%) sys   0.66 ( 4%) wall
 reload CSE regs       :   0.21 ( 1%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.13 ( 1%) wall
 flow 2                :   0.05 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.05 ( 0%) wall
 if-conversion 2       :   0.07 ( 0%) usr   0.01 ( 1%) sys   0.02 ( 0%) wall
 rename registers      :   0.12 ( 1%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.12 ( 1%) wall
 machine dep reorg     :   0.05 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.11 ( 1%) wall
 shorten branches      :   0.10 ( 1%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.07 ( 0%) wall
 final                 :   0.18 ( 1%) usr   0.02 ( 1%) sys   0.24 ( 1%) wall
 symout                :   0.00 ( 0%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.01 ( 0%) wall
 rest of compilation   :   0.12 ( 1%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.03 ( 0%) wall
 TOTAL                 :  14.62             1.60            16.43
14.630u 1.630s 0:16.46 98.7%    0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w

-- 


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

[Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.4/4.0/4.1 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-09-18 19:27 -------
Even the -fno-inline case slowed down too:
pc64:~/src/pr8361> time ~/onetest.release/bin/gcc pr8361.ii -S -m32 -O1 -fno-inline
11.171u 0.359s 0:11.66 98.7%    0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
pc64:~/src/pr8361> time gcc-4.0 pr8361.ii -S -m32 -O1 -fno-inline
9.578u 0.295s 0:10.02 98.4%     0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w


interesting part of 4.1 time report:
 combiner              :   0.36 ( 3%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.31 ( 2%) wall    1933 kB ( 0%) ggc
 local alloc           :   0.33 ( 3%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.31 ( 2%) wall    3654 kB ( 1%) ggc
 global alloc          :   0.85 ( 8%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.75 ( 6%) wall   12187 kB ( 3%) ggc
 tree operand scan     :   0.25 ( 2%) usr   0.10 ( 7%) sys   0.29 ( 2%) wall    9315 kB ( 2%) ggc
 dominator optimization:   0.35 ( 3%) usr   0.01 ( 1%) sys   0.34 ( 3%) wall    3938 kB ( 1%) ggc
 tree PTA              :   0.46 ( 4%) usr   0.02 ( 1%) sys   0.53 ( 4%) wall   19358 kB ( 5%) ggc
 tree alias analysis   :   0.25 ( 2%) usr   0.04 ( 3%) sys   0.27 ( 2%) wall    9734 kB ( 2%) ggc
 tree SSA rewrite      :   0.19 ( 2%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.24 ( 2%) wall   10314 kB ( 3%) ggc
 tree SSA incremental  :   0.32 ( 3%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.26 ( 2%) wall    2956 kB ( 1%) ggc
 parser                :   1.71 (15%) usr   0.42 (28%) sys   2.07 (16%) wall  154459 kB (39%) ggc
 life analysis         :   0.57 ( 5%) usr   0.01 ( 1%) sys   0.51 ( 4%) wall    3127 kB ( 1%) ggc


corresponding 4.0 time report:
 combiner              :   0.31 ( 3%) usr   0.01 ( 1%) sys   0.28 ( 2%) wall
 local alloc           :   0.35 ( 4%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.47 ( 4%) wall
 global alloc          :   0.74 ( 7%) usr   0.01 ( 1%) sys   0.96 ( 8%) wall
 tree operand scan     :   0.18 ( 2%) usr   0.07 ( 5%) sys   0.23 ( 2%) wall
 dominator optimization:   0.42 ( 4%) usr   0.01 ( 1%) sys   0.31 ( 3%) wall
 tree PTA              :   0.14 ( 1%) usr   0.01 ( 1%) sys   0.11 ( 1%) wall
 tree alias analysis   :   0.05 ( 1%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.07 ( 1%) wall
 tree SSA rewrite      :   0.17 ( 2%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.18 ( 2%) wall
 parser                :   1.71 (17%) usr   0.41 (32%) sys   2.22 (20%) wall
 life analysis         :   0.43 ( 4%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.61 ( 5%) wall




-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Last reconfirmed|2005-07-25 01:54:59         |2005-09-18 19:27:11
               date|                            |


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

[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@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.