From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15068 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2004 14:31:51 -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 15023 invoked by uid 48); 18 Nov 2004 14:31:42 -0000 Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 14:31:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20041118143142.15022.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20040518194300.15524.pinskia@gcc.gnu.org> References: <20040518194300.15524.pinskia@gcc.gnu.org> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/15524] [4.0 Regression] jump threading on trees is slow with switch statements with large # of cases X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg02160.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-18 14:31 ------- I think this fixed except I have not checked with checking turned off. With checking still on I get the following passes as hot: dominator optimization: 31.03 (42%) usr 0.02 ( 1%) sys 31.26 (40%) wall tree SSA verifier : 5.64 ( 8%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 5.68 ( 7%) wall rename registers : 7.37 (10%) usr 0.02 ( 1%) sys 7.46 (10%) wall But cfg cleanup went down a huge amount: tree CFG cleanup : 1.23 ( 2%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 1.25 ( 2%) wall Before (20041113) on a slightly faster machine and different OS: tree CFG cleanup : 33.36 (43%) usr 0.01 ( 1%) sys 33.41 (42%) wall tree split crit edges : 16.83 (22%) usr 0.01 ( 1%) sys 16.87 (21%) wall dominator optimization: 7.94 (10%) usr 0.03 ( 2%) sys 7.97 (10%) wall tree SSA verifier : 2.57 ( 3%) usr 0.01 ( 1%) sys 2.53 ( 3%) wall rename registers : 5.57 ( 7%) usr 0.03 ( 2%) sys 5.61 ( 7%) wall Hmm, either DOM was just slowed down (because of checking) or something is really different between these two OS's. But as you can see that tree CFG cleanup and tree split crit edges have sped up a lot. I will try to get a new compiler built without checking turned on later today to get final numbers. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15524