From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31628 invoked by alias); 13 Oct 2004 04:03:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 31605 invoked by uid 48); 13 Oct 2004 04:02:59 -0000 Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 04:03:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20041013040259.31604.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20041013035800.17967.pinskia@gcc.gnu.org> References: <20041013035800.17967.pinskia@gcc.gnu.org> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug middle-end/17967] [4.0 Regression] Expand is considered slower? (or is it because gimplifier considered part of expand) X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg01696.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-13 04:02 ------- 4.0.0: Execution times (seconds) preprocessing : 0.06 ( 0%) usr 0.12 (17%) sys 0.16 ( 1%) wall lexical analysis : 0.12 ( 1%) usr 0.23 (32%) sys 0.47 ( 3%) wall parser : 0.14 ( 1%) usr 0.15 (21%) sys 0.23 ( 1%) wall tree gimplify : 0.04 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.04 ( 0%) wall tree eh : 0.02 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.02 ( 0%) wall tree CFG construction : 0.04 ( 0%) usr 0.01 ( 1%) sys 0.06 ( 0%) wall tree CFG cleanup : 0.09 ( 1%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.10 ( 1%) wall tree PTA : 0.01 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.01 ( 0%) wall tree PHI insertion : 0.00 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.01 ( 0%) wall tree SSA rewrite : 0.02 ( 0%) usr 0.01 ( 1%) sys 0.03 ( 0%) wall tree SSA other : 0.06 ( 0%) usr 0.07 (10%) sys 0.16 ( 1%) wall tree operand scan : 0.04 ( 0%) usr 0.07 (10%) sys 0.10 ( 1%) wall dominator optimization: 0.08 ( 1%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.08 ( 1%) wall tree conservative DCE : 0.01 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.01 ( 0%) wall tree rename SSA copies: 0.01 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.00 ( 0%) wall dominance frontiers : 0.02 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.01 ( 0%) wall expand : 13.82 (95%) usr 0.04 ( 6%) sys 14.35 (90%) wall global alloc : 0.01 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.00 ( 0%) wall symout : 0.00 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.01 ( 0%) wall TOTAL : 14.60 0.71 15.95 3.3: Execution times (seconds) cfg construction : 0.09 ( 2%) usr 0.01 ( 2%) sys 0.00 ( 0%) wall cfg cleanup : 3.47 (79%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 2.00 (50%) wall trivially dead code : 0.07 ( 2%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.00 ( 0%) wall preprocessing : 0.04 ( 1%) usr 0.12 (22%) sys 0.00 ( 0%) wall lexical analysis : 0.17 ( 4%) usr 0.19 (35%) sys 0.00 ( 0%) wall parser : 0.08 ( 2%) usr 0.16 (29%) sys 0.00 ( 0%) wall expand : 0.04 ( 1%) usr 0.01 ( 2%) sys 0.00 ( 0%) wall integration : 0.01 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.00 ( 0%) wall jump : 0.08 ( 2%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.00 ( 0%) wall CSE : 0.15 ( 3%) usr 0.03 ( 5%) sys 0.00 ( 0%) wall branch prediction : 0.11 ( 3%) usr 0.01 ( 2%) sys 2.00 (50%) wall local alloc : 0.01 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.00 ( 0%) wall global alloc : 0.00 ( 0%) usr 0.01 ( 2%) sys 0.00 ( 0%) wall flow 2 : 0.01 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.00 ( 0%) wall rest of compilation : 0.05 ( 1%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.00 ( 0%) wall TOTAL : 4.39 0.55 4.00 remove_useless_stmts is counted in expand. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17967