From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20131 invoked by alias); 29 Nov 2004 21:04:46 -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 19717 invoked by alias); 29 Nov 2004 21:04:41 -0000 Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 21:04:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20041129210441.19716.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "kgardas at objectsecurity dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20040120183908.13776.kgardas@objectsecurity.com> References: <20040120183908.13776.kgardas@objectsecurity.com> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/13776] [4.0 Regression] [tree-ssa] Many C++ compile-time regression in 4.0-tree-ssa 040120 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg03713.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2004-11-29 21:04 ------- Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] [tree-ssa] Many C++ compile-time regression in 4.0-tree-ssa 040120 On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, law at redhat dot com wrote: > > I've updated comparison table for 4.0.0 20041126 compiler version. You can > > find it here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-11/msg01157.html > BTW, if I'm reading that table correctly, overall the compile time > performance of mainline is actually on-par or better than 3.4 at > -O0, -O1 and -O2 for this test. Yes, you are 100% right. Karel -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13776