public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "bangerth at dealii dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/14563] octave built under Cygwin very slow
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 20:33:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040314203306.19362.qmail@sources.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040312233606.14563.paulthomas2@wanadoo.fr>


------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org  2004-03-14 20:33 -------
One of the things you could do is to compile the octave version you 
use with both 3.2.3 and 3.3.3, in each case with profiling information 
(i.e. with -pg) and check the output to see whether there is one single 
function that now takes significantly longer (and thus moved up in 
the output of gprof, in the list of functions sorted by execution time). 
 
If there should be one such function, it might be worth to compile just this 
one function (or file) with the other compiler, to verify that it indeed 
is the problem. This way we could at least localize the problem a little 
better. This would also be of great value to us, since we have no clue 
about the octave functions, and it is hard for us to look at profiling 
output without knowing what all these functions do etc. 
 
If you have identified the function that has the slowdown (assuming that it 
is a single function), then one would rip it out of the program and place 
it (and whatever else it needs) into a small file where main() simply calls 
this function a number of times with dummy arguments. This way we would 
have a simpler and much smaller testcase. 
 
W. 

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14563


  parent reply	other threads:[~2004-03-14 20:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-03-12 23:36 [Bug c++/14563] New: " paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr
2004-03-13  7:24 ` [Bug c++/14563] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-03-13  8:06 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr
2004-03-14 20:33 ` bangerth at dealii dot org [this message]
2004-03-24  9:52 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr
2004-03-24 15:57 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-03-24 16:38 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr
2004-03-24 17:03 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-03-24 21:07 ` Ben dot Diedrich at noaa dot gov
2004-03-24 22:58 ` dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net
2004-03-25  6:40 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr
2004-03-25 13:43 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-03-25 14:16 ` Ben dot Diedrich at noaa dot gov
2004-03-25 14:17 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr
2004-03-25 14:26 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr
2004-03-25 14:37 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-03-25 15:37 ` Ben dot Diedrich at noaa dot gov
2004-03-25 16:41 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr
2004-03-28 21:19 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr
2004-03-28 22:28 ` pkienzle at users dot sf dot net
2004-03-31  0:21 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr
2004-04-02 17:43 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr
2004-04-02 19:55 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-04-02 20:35 ` dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net
2004-04-02 20:41 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
2004-04-02 20:44 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-04-03  9:10 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr
2004-04-03 17:19 ` epanelelytha at kellertimo dot de
2004-04-03 17:54 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr
2004-04-03 18:00 ` epanelelytha at kellertimo dot de
2004-04-03 18:24 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr
2004-07-12 14:50 ` [Bug libstdc++/14563] new/delete much slower than malloc/free pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-12 19:21 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr
2004-07-12 20:55 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-07-13  4:17 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr
2004-07-28  2:50 ` ron_hylton at hotmail dot com
2004-07-28  3:57 ` ron_hylton at hotmail dot com
2004-07-28  6:03 ` [Bug target/14563] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-29  4:23 ` ron_hylton at hotmail dot com
2004-08-08  9:24 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr
2004-11-10  8:21 ` [Bug target/14563] [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] new/delete much slower than malloc/free because of sjlj exceptions giovannibajo at libero dot it
2004-11-10  8:21 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
2004-11-10  9:10 ` dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net
2004-11-10 12:46 ` [Bug target/14563] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-11-10 16:20 ` ron_hylton at hotmail dot com
2004-11-10 17:05 ` kjd at duda dot org
2004-11-13 11:03 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr
2004-11-14 17:03 ` ken dot duda at gmail dot com
2004-11-14 18:04 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr
2004-11-14 22:40 ` ken dot duda at gmail dot com
2005-05-12 14:53 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-05-12 14:54 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20040314203306.19362.qmail@sources.redhat.com \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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).