public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug optimization/10160] [3.3/3.4 regression][SPARC] compile time regression; inordinate time spent in "scheduling"
[not found] <20030320051600.10160.china@thewrittenword.com>
@ 2003-06-08 18:57 ` pinskia@physics.uc.edu
2003-06-18 8:04 ` [Bug optimization/10160] [3.3/3.4 regression] " ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: pinskia@physics.uc.edu @ 2003-06-08 18:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10160
pinskia@physics.uc.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |3.3.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug optimization/10160] [3.3/3.4 regression] compile time regression; inordinate time spent in "scheduling"
[not found] <20030320051600.10160.china@thewrittenword.com>
2003-06-08 18:57 ` [Bug optimization/10160] [3.3/3.4 regression][SPARC] compile time regression; inordinate time spent in "scheduling" pinskia@physics.uc.edu
@ 2003-06-18 8:04 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-07-25 11:11 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-06-18 8:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10160
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|3.3.1 |3.4
------- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-06-18 08:04 -------
I'm changing the target milestone because the problem is a fundamental flaw in
the new heuristics of the tree inliner, which I think cannot be fixed on a
release branch. I'll try to come up with something sensible for the 3.4 release.
Meanwhile, a workaround is to compile with
-O2 --param max-inline-insns-single=180
which will bring the compile time on par with GCC 3.2.3.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug optimization/10160] [3.3/3.4 regression] compile time regression; inordinate time spent in "scheduling"
[not found] <20030320051600.10160.china@thewrittenword.com>
2003-06-08 18:57 ` [Bug optimization/10160] [3.3/3.4 regression][SPARC] compile time regression; inordinate time spent in "scheduling" pinskia@physics.uc.edu
2003-06-18 8:04 ` [Bug optimization/10160] [3.3/3.4 regression] " ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-07-25 11:11 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-09-04 10:17 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-07-25 11:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10160
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |compile-time-hog
------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-07-25 11:11 -------
Eric, how about trying this one with current mainline. I would like to see how
Jan Hubicka's new function body size estimates do in this case but I don't have
access to a SPARC machine. However my experience with the new code has been
very positive in all cases, maybe it helps in this case, too.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug optimization/10160] [3.3/3.4 regression] compile time regression; inordinate time spent in "scheduling"
[not found] <20030320051600.10160.china@thewrittenword.com>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2003-07-25 11:11 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-09-04 10:17 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-09-04 21:08 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-09-04 10:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10160
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |WAITING
------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-09-04 10:17 -------
With all the changes in the tree-inliner (and in particular with the call graph
code) since March, the information in this bug report is obsolete. This PR
really needs testing and reconfirmation if the problem still exists. Can
someone test this please?
I've marked this PR as WAITING for feedback, so that we can close it if no-one
will test this in the next three months or so.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug optimization/10160] [3.3/3.4 regression] compile time regression; inordinate time spent in "scheduling"
[not found] <20030320051600.10160.china@thewrittenword.com>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2003-09-04 10:17 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-09-04 21:08 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-09-04 21:17 ` bugzilla-gcc at thewrittenword dot com
` (8 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-09-04 21:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10160
------- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-09-04 21:08 -------
The informations are still valid on the 3.3 branch as of GCC 3.3.2, but I think
this is not fixable on that branch. And the testcase doesn't compile on mainline
anymore.
Albert, do you still have the source code from which the testcase was extracted?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug optimization/10160] [3.3/3.4 regression] compile time regression; inordinate time spent in "scheduling"
[not found] <20030320051600.10160.china@thewrittenword.com>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2003-09-04 21:08 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-09-04 21:17 ` bugzilla-gcc at thewrittenword dot com
2003-09-04 22:26 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: bugzilla-gcc at thewrittenword dot com @ 2003-09-04 21:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10160
------- Additional Comments From bugzilla-gcc at thewrittenword dot com 2003-09-04 21:17 -------
The test case is from LyX. I'll try to upload a new version in a few days.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug optimization/10160] [3.3/3.4 regression] compile time regression; inordinate time spent in "scheduling"
[not found] <20030320051600.10160.china@thewrittenword.com>
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2003-09-04 21:17 ` bugzilla-gcc at thewrittenword dot com
@ 2003-09-04 22:26 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-12-01 0:24 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-09-04 22:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10160
------- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-09-04 22:26 -------
You need to do it against a recent CVS snapshot of gcc-3.4 because I think we
won't fix the inliner of the 3.3 branch and it seems that the new parser can't
grok the preprocessed file generated by 3.3.x in this case.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug optimization/10160] [3.3/3.4 regression] compile time regression; inordinate time spent in "scheduling"
[not found] <20030320051600.10160.china@thewrittenword.com>
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2003-09-04 22:26 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-12-01 0:24 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-12-24 20:21 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-12-01 0:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-12-01 00:24 -------
We know that is bug still exist most likely but really need a new preprocessed source for 3.4.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10160
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug optimization/10160] [3.3/3.4 regression] compile time regression; inordinate time spent in "scheduling"
[not found] <20030320051600.10160.china@thewrittenword.com>
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2003-12-01 0:24 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-12-24 20:21 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-12-24 20:21 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-12-24 20:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-12-24 20:10 -------
*** Bug 13027 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |albrecht dot dress at arcor
| |dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10160
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug optimization/10160] [3.3/3.4 regression] compile time regression; inordinate time spent in "scheduling"
[not found] <20030320051600.10160.china@thewrittenword.com>
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2003-12-24 20:21 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-12-24 20:21 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-01-10 21:35 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-12-24 20:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-12-24 20:12 -------
This is also a memory hog: < scheduling :7510.98 (87%) usr 0.74 ( 4%)
sys13791.00 (86%) wall>
See how wall time is about twice as big as user.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |memory-hog
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10160
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug optimization/10160] [3.3/3.4 regression] compile time regression; inordinate time spent in "scheduling"
[not found] <20030320051600.10160.china@thewrittenword.com>
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2003-12-24 20:21 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-01-10 21:35 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-01-10 21:39 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-01-10 21:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-01-10 21:35 -------
Thanks Giovanni. I'll try tomorrow.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|WAITING |NEW
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2004-01-10 21:35:50
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10160
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug optimization/10160] [3.3/3.4 regression] compile time regression; inordinate time spent in "scheduling"
[not found] <20030320051600.10160.china@thewrittenword.com>
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2004-01-10 21:35 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-01-10 21:39 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-01-11 3:05 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-01-12 8:23 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-01-10 21:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-01-10 21:39 -------
I tried on powerpc-apple-darwin7.2.0 and it does not have the problem in the scheduler.
Also the problem I see is in the C++ front-end (but this is with checking enabled):
parser : 19.86 (14%) usr 14.48 (27%) sys 94.09 (26%) wall
name lookup : 20.51 (14%) usr 27.71 (51%) sys 97.30 (27%) wall
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10160
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug optimization/10160] [3.3/3.4 regression] compile time regression; inordinate time spent in "scheduling"
[not found] <20030320051600.10160.china@thewrittenword.com>
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2004-01-10 21:39 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-01-11 3:05 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-01-12 8:23 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-01-11 3:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-01-11 03:05 -------
to compile the 3.4 source on 3.3, delete the first couple of lines dealing with the debuging
part of libstdc++, delete some __attribute__((unused)), change remaining __gnu_norm
to std. With 3.3, I can reproduce it but not with 3.4 so it looks like it has been fixed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10160
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug optimization/10160] [3.3/3.4 regression] compile time regression; inordinate time spent in "scheduling"
[not found] <20030320051600.10160.china@thewrittenword.com>
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2004-01-11 3:05 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-01-12 8:23 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-01-12 8:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-01-12 08:22 -------
The results at -O2 are much better on mainline: no memory explosion (peak around
120 MB) and decent time (less than 2 minutes).
I guess we can all give a big Thanks to Jan!
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10160
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-01-12 8:23 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <20030320051600.10160.china@thewrittenword.com>
2003-06-08 18:57 ` [Bug optimization/10160] [3.3/3.4 regression][SPARC] compile time regression; inordinate time spent in "scheduling" pinskia@physics.uc.edu
2003-06-18 8:04 ` [Bug optimization/10160] [3.3/3.4 regression] " ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-07-25 11:11 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-09-04 10:17 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-09-04 21:08 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-09-04 21:17 ` bugzilla-gcc at thewrittenword dot com
2003-09-04 22:26 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-12-01 0:24 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-12-24 20:21 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-12-24 20:21 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-01-10 21:35 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-01-10 21:39 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-01-11 3:05 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-01-12 8:23 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).