[Bug c++/17278] New: 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

[Bug c++/17278] New: 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

[kgardas at objectsecurity dot com]

Hello,
attached typecode.ii preprocessed file shows 40% regression in compile-time
while compiled with 3.5.0 in comparison with 3.4.1 when -O1 optimization is
used. To be correct, 40% regression is shown on not-preprocessed file. When I
compile file preprocessed by 3.5.0 with 3.4.1, the regression is only about 30%
which seems like 3.5.0's libstdc++ library is either bigger or slower to
compiler with.
Cheers,
Karel

-- 
           Summary: 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1
                    at -O1 optimization level
           Product: gcc
           Version: 3.5.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: c++
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
                CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
 GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
  GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278

[Bug c++/17278] 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

[kgardas at objectsecurity dot com]

------- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com  2004-09-02 08:58 -------
Created an attachment (id=7021)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7021&action=view)
gcc 3.5.0 preprocessed typecode.cc file


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278

[Bug c++/17278] 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

[kgardas at objectsecurity dot com]

------- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com  2004-09-02 09:00 -------
Here is an analysis done by Steven Bosscher:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-08/msg01602.html

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278

[Bug c++/17278] [3.5 Regression] 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

[giovannibajo at libero dot it]

------- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it  2004-09-02 11:05 -------
Confirmed. Looks like it's just a matter of tuning which optimizations are 
implied by -O1.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |giovannibajo at libero dot
                   |                            |it
OtherBugsDependingO|                            |13776
              nThis|                            |
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|                            |1
           Keywords|                            |compile-time-hog
      Known to fail|                            |3.5.0
      Known to work|                            |3.4.0
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2004-09-02 11:05:08
               date|                            |
            Summary|40% C++ compile-time        |[3.5 Regression] 40% C++
                   |regression in comparison    |compile-time regression in
                   |with 3.4.1 at -O1           |comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1
                   |optimization level          |optimization level
   Target Milestone|---                         |3.5.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278

[Bug c++/17278] [3.5 Regression] 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-09-02 17:07 -------
Hmm, I disagree with Steven's analysis, I think there are other problems here than just more 
optimizations, if I have time I will look into it, the next few days.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |                            |org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278

[Bug c++/17278] [4.0 Regression] 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-10-03 23:37 -------
Well now most of the time is in cgraph_reset_static_var_maps which is PR 17707.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  BugsThisDependsOn|                            |17707
      Known to fail|4.0                         |4.0.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278

[Bug c++/17278] [4.0 Regression] 24% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-10-25 12:55 -------
Rewording summary because now we are only 23%:
File            342-O0  400-O0  Delta%  342-O1  400-O1  Delta%  342-O2  400-O2  Delta%
typecode.cc     9.09    7.65    18.82   13.53   17.73   -23.69  32.95   23.29   41.48
>From <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-10/msg00952.html>.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|[4.0 Regression] 40% C++    |[4.0 Regression] 24% C++
                   |compile-time regression in  |compile-time regression in
                   |comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1|comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1
                   |optimization level          |optimization level


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278

[Bug c++/17278] [4.0 Regression] 24% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

[kgardas at objectsecurity dot com]

------- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com  2004-10-25 13:06 -------
Subject: Re:  [4.0 Regression] 24% C++ compile-time regression
 in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level


Yes, but this only apply to typecode.cc. If you consider ir.cc, you will
need to increase from 40 to 44% and since subject does not talk about
typecode.cc, I would consider leaving it at 40% better option for now...

Cheers,
Karel



-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278

[Bug c++/17278] [4.0 Regression] 24% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

[kgardas at objectsecurity dot com]

------- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com  2004-10-25 13:12 -------
Subject: Re:  [4.0 Regression] 24% C++ compile-time regression
 in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level


Please have a look into http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13776
for preprocessed ir.cc file for your experiments.

Cheers,
Karel



-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278

[Bug c++/17278] [4.0 Regression] 24% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-10-25 14:07 -------
For ir.cc, does -fno-threadsafe-statics help if so this is a non bug (in that c++ front-end has changed 
to output more functions so what does the middle-end/back-end expect but slower compile time for 
those components).

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278

[Bug c++/17278] [4.0 Regression] 24% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 
Bug 17278 depends on bug 17707, which changed state.

Bug 17707 Summary: [4.0 Regression] O(N^2) in cgraph_reset_static_var_maps
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17707

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

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278

[Bug c++/17278] [4.0 Regression] 24% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

[kgardas at objectsecurity dot com]

------- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com  2004-10-26 06:45 -------
Subject: Re:  [4.0 Regression] 24% C++ compile-time regression
 in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

 Hi,

I have tested -fno-threadsafe-statics now and it does not affect so much,
IMHO:

$ c++  -I../include  -time -O0 -Wall   -DPIC -fPIC  -c ir.cc -o ir.pic.o
# cc1plus 68.57 2.26
# as 5.92 0.27

$ c++  -I../include  -fno-threadsafe-statics -time -O0 -Wall   -DPIC -fPIC  -c ir.cc -o ir.pic.o
# cc1plus 67.94 2.04
# as 5.86 0.26

Cheers,
Karel



-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278

[Bug c++/17278] [4.0 Regression] 24% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-11-27 00:39 -------
Anybody want to do new timings for typecode.ii at -O1 because I think that testcase is now fixed?

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278

[Bug c++/17278] [4.0 Regression] 24% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

[belyshev at lubercy dot com]

------- Additional Comments From belyshev at lubercy dot com  2004-11-27 03:35 -------
       3.4.4     4.0.0     delta
---------------------------------
-O0      8.2       7.1      -13%
-O1     11.0      16.5       50%
-O2     23.3      21.8       -6%


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278

[Bug c++/17278] [4.0 Regression] 24% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-12-04 17:54 -------
 tree remove redundant PHIs:   0.34 ( 2%) usr   0.02 ( 0%) sys   0.34 ( 1%) wall
 tree SSA rewrite      :   0.42 ( 3%) usr   0.06 ( 1%) sys   0.62 ( 3%) wall
 tree SSA other        :   0.88 ( 6%) usr   0.61 ( 9%) sys   1.39 ( 6%) wall
 tree operand scan     :   0.45 ( 3%) usr   0.64 (10%) sys   1.51 ( 6%) wall
 dominator optimization:   0.86 ( 6%) usr   0.05 ( 1%) sys   0.83 ( 3%) wall
 tree alias analysis   :   0.19 ( 1%) usr   0.01 ( 0%) sys   0.25 ( 1%) wall
 tree PHI insertion    :   0.23 ( 2%) usr   0.02 ( 0%) sys   0.24 ( 1%) wall

 expand                :   0.72 ( 5%) usr   0.08 ( 1%) sys   0.91 ( 4%) wall
I wounder how expand is this slow, it might be just again counting more than just expand here (again).

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278

[Bug c++/17278] [4.0 Regression] 24% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-12-23 11:28 -------
Karel, your latest comparison is almost a month old (it was
here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-11/msg01157.html), and
we've fixed a few compile time bottlenecks since then.  Can
you spare some cycles and send an updated comparison?  It's
probably still ir.cc where we have regressions, but perhaps
not as bad as before *fingers crossed*  ;-)



-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278

[Bug c++/17278] [4.0 Regression] 24% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-12-23 11:30 -------
It's interesting that -O1 is consistently slower than previous
releases.  Perhaps we should turn off some of the more costly
tree passes at -O1, such as iterating in DOM, and the expensive
loop optimizations.  Any thoughts on this?
 

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278

[Bug c++/17278] [4.0 Regression] 24% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

[kgardas at objectsecurity dot com]

------- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com  2004-12-28 21:00 -------
Subject: Re:  [4.0 Regression] 24% C++ compile-time regression
 in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level


New comparison is here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-12/msg01157.html

Good work! :-)

Cheers,
Karel
--
Karel Gardas                  kgardas@objectsecurity.com
ObjectSecurity Ltd.           http://www.objectsecurity.com



-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278

[Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-12-28 22:33 -------
Now only 8%.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Component|c++                         |middle-end
            Summary|[4.0 Regression] 24% C++    |[4.0 Regression] 8% C++
                   |compile-time regression in  |compile-time regression in
                   |comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1|comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1
                   |optimization level          |optimization level


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278

[Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

[kgardas at objectsecurity dot com]

------- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com  2004-12-28 22:39 -------
Subject: Re:  [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time
 regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level


On Tue, 28 Dec 2004, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:

> Now only 8%.

True for typecode.cc, but not for ir.cc where there is ~28% regression.

Cheers,
Karel



-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278

[Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-12-28 22:40 -------
(In reply to comment #18)
> Subject: Re:  [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time
>  regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
> 
> 
> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> 
> > Now only 8%.
> 
> True for typecode.cc, but not for ir.cc where there is ~28% regression.

PR 13776 is keeping track of that regression.
This one is for typecode.cc.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278

[Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

[kgardas at objectsecurity dot com]

------- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com  2004-12-28 22:42 -------
Subject: Re:  [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time
 regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:

> > On Tue, 28 Dec 2004, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> >
> > > Now only 8%.
> >
> > True for typecode.cc, but not for ir.cc where there is ~28% regression.
>
> PR 13776 is keeping track of that regression.
> This one is for typecode.cc.

Err, you are right! Sorry for that.

Karel



-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278

[Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

[mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-01-20 22:58 -------
Does this 8% regression apply to preprocessed source, or only to unpreprocessed
source?  If the latter, then this PR should be closed as WONTFIX; the runtime
library has gotten bigger, and that makes things slower, but nothing is going to
be done about that.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278

[Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-01-21 00:24 -------
Mark, typecode.ii ;-) 
 
So it is preprocessed.  That doesn't mean it's smaller though, the 
preprocessed larger library is still a larger library. 
 
Anyway, the problem here is more that compared to gcc 3.x we do a lot 
more work at -O1.  Basically all tree-ssa passes run at -O1, we probably 
should look into disabling a few, and some RTL passes too. 
 
I've suggested a few things before.  Disabling RTL CSE1, gcse, and jump 
threading for -O1, and don't allow tree-ssa DOM to iterating at -O1 would 
make a big difference already, I think.  But apparently nobody cares 
enough to actually try it. 
 

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |mark at codesourcery dot com


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278

[Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-01-21 10:57 -------
Created an attachment (id=8029)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8029&action=view)
Disable some expensive passes at -O1

I'm running a SPECint comparison between GCC-hammer-branch and mainline
with the attached patch applied.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |steven at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |dot org                     |org
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278

[Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-01-27 15:55 -------
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-01/msg02033.html 

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |patch


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278

[Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-01-27 16:33 -------
Subject: Bug 17278

CVSROOT:	/cvs/gcc
Module name:	gcc
Changes by:	steven@gcc.gnu.org	2005-01-27 16:32:16

Modified files:
	gcc            : ChangeLog opts.c tree-ssa-dom.c 

Log message:
	PR middle-end/17278
	* opts.c (decode_options): Move flag_thread_jumps from -O1 and
	higher to -O2 and higher.  Likewise for tree PRE.
	* tree-ssa-dom.c (tree_ssa_dominator_optimize): Only iterate at -O2
	and better.

Patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.7306&r2=2.7307
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/opts.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.90&r2=1.91
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/tree-ssa-dom.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.88&r2=2.89



-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278

[Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-01-27 16:40 -------
Partially fixed at least. 
 
Karel, new timings?  (This one will probably still be a bit slower, but 
hopefully we've gained a bit again...) 

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278

[Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |WAITING


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278

[Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

[kgardas at objectsecurity dot com]

------- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com  2005-01-31 09:00 -------
Subject: Re:  [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time
 regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level


Hello,

new timings are here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-01/msg01714.html

Actually typecode.cc went to ~9% regression for -O1, please read this
report for more information why.

Cheers,
Karel




-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278

[Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|WAITING                     |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|2004-09-02 11:05:08         |2005-02-01 00:21:16
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278

[Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-02-01 00:22 -------
I have no further ideas for speedups for this bug... 

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|steven at gcc dot gnu dot   |unassigned at gcc dot gnu
                   |org                         |dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278

[Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0/4.1 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

[kazu at cs dot umass dot edu]

------- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu  2005-03-01 15:08 -------
Karel, could you retest the testcase with the gcc-4.0 branch?

Several speed-up patches went in after your last benchmark.

Thanks,


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278

[Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0/4.1 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

[kgardas at objectsecurity dot com]

------- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com  2005-03-02 20:05 -------
Subject: Re:  [4.0/4.1 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time
 regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level


New results for 4.0.0 20050301 are posted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-03/msg00132.html

Cheers,
Karel



-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278

[Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0/4.1 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

[giovannibajo at libero dot it]

------- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it  2005-03-02 21:21 -------
At this point, I think we could safely close this and related bugs. Karel 
could continue to periodically test GCC and report new regressions in new 
bugs. I don't think keeping these open bring us any benefit right now. Karel, 
do you agree?

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278

[Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0/4.1 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

[kgardas at objectsecurity dot com]

------- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com  2005-03-02 21:25 -------
Subject: Re:  [4.0/4.1 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time
 regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

I agree with Giovanni that both #17278 and #13776 are fixed from MICO
compile-time regressions point of view. If you would like to close them,
I'm also for it, just please be careful with #13776 which seems to
"accumulate" more staff than only MICO-related regressions.

Thanks!

Karel



-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278

[Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0/4.1 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-03-02 21:27 -------
Fixed.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278

[Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0/4.1 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

[giovannibajo at libero dot it]

------- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it  2005-03-02 21:28 -------
OK let's close this as fixed then. Many thanks to the hard work of the whole 
GCC team!

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278