* [Bug optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
[not found] <20021025133601.8361.gerald@pfeifer.com>
@ 2003-10-16 2:39 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-12-29 16:23 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (37 subsequent siblings)
38 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-10-16 2:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|3.3.2 |3.4
------- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-10-16 02:39 -------
Well, here we go postponing this PR yet again... This time until GCC 3.4.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
[not found] <20021025133601.8361.gerald@pfeifer.com>
2003-10-16 2:39 ` [Bug optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-12-29 16:23 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-01-02 2:31 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
` (36 subsequent siblings)
38 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-12-29 16:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-12-29 15:40 -------
Zdenek's new dominator interface helps, see:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-12/msg02164.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
[not found] <20021025133601.8361.gerald@pfeifer.com>
2003-10-16 2:39 ` [Bug optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-12-29 16:23 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-01-02 2:31 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
2004-01-14 3:22 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (35 subsequent siblings)
38 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread
From: giovannibajo at libero dot it @ 2004-01-02 2:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
Bug 8361 depends on bug 13479, which changed state.
Bug 13479 Summary: [3.4 regression] 20-30% compile-time regression with template-heavy code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13479
What |Old Value |New Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
[not found] <20021025133601.8361.gerald@pfeifer.com>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2004-01-02 2:31 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
@ 2004-01-14 3:22 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-01-21 18:28 ` [Bug optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/3.5 " gerald at pfeifer dot com
` (34 subsequent siblings)
38 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-01-14 3:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-01-14 03:22 -------
Some improvements lately made by Jan.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/3.5 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
[not found] <20021025133601.8361.gerald@pfeifer.com>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2004-01-14 3:22 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-01-21 18:28 ` gerald at pfeifer dot com
2004-02-06 1:44 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (33 subsequent siblings)
38 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread
From: gerald at pfeifer dot com @ 2004-01-21 18:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From gerald at pfeifer dot com 2004-01-21 18:28 -------
Some additional benchmark data (which will soon be outdated, and for the better
it seems) by work Jan is doing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-01/msg00657.html
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last reconfirmed|2003-12-19 06:46:21 |2004-01-21 18:28:31
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/3.5 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
[not found] <20021025133601.8361.gerald@pfeifer.com>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2004-01-21 18:28 ` [Bug optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/3.5 " gerald at pfeifer dot com
@ 2004-02-06 1:44 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-03-13 16:38 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (32 subsequent siblings)
38 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-02-06 1:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
Bug 8361 depends on bug 10944, which changed state.
Bug 10944 Summary: alloc_page in ggc-page.c is slow
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10944
What |Old Value |New Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution| |WONTFIX
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/3.5 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
[not found] <20021025133601.8361.gerald@pfeifer.com>
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2004-02-06 1:44 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-03-13 16:38 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-06-18 23:39 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/8361] " mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (31 subsequent siblings)
38 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-03-13 16:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-03-13 16:38 -------
This PR just keeps hanging around. How sad. But, no more work will be done
this before 3.4.0, so I've postponed until 3.4.1.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|3.4.0 |3.4.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/3.5 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
[not found] <20021025133601.8361.gerald@pfeifer.com>
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2004-03-13 16:38 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-06-18 23:39 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-06-22 8:38 ` gerald at pfeifer dot com
` (30 subsequent siblings)
38 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-06-18 23:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-06-18 23:39 -------
Postponed until GCC 3.4.2.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|3.4.1 |3.4.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/3.5 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
[not found] <20021025133601.8361.gerald@pfeifer.com>
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2004-06-18 23:39 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/8361] " mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-06-22 8:38 ` gerald at pfeifer dot com
2004-06-25 4:32 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (29 subsequent siblings)
38 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread
From: gerald at pfeifer dot com @ 2004-06-22 8:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
BugsThisDependsOn| |16131
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/3.5 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
[not found] <20021025133601.8361.gerald@pfeifer.com>
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2004-06-22 8:38 ` gerald at pfeifer dot com
@ 2004-06-25 4:32 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-06-25 7:44 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (28 subsequent siblings)
38 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-06-25 4:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
Bug 8361 depends on bug 16131, which changed state.
Bug 16131 Summary: [3.5 Regression] internal compiler error: in create_tmp_var, at gimplify.c:361
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16131
What |Old Value |New Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/3.5 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
[not found] <20021025133601.8361.gerald@pfeifer.com>
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2004-06-25 4:32 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-06-25 7:44 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-08-29 18:50 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (27 subsequent siblings)
38 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-06-25 7:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-06-25 07:43 -------
For powerpc-apple-darwin I posted two patches which helps at -O0 which goes from 18.0 seconds to
15.3 seconds:
<http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-06/msg02029.html>
<http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-06/msg02031.html>
Note these patches solve problems specific to darwin and only helps there.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/3.5 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
[not found] <20021025133601.8361.gerald@pfeifer.com>
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2004-06-25 7:44 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-08-29 18:50 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-09-15 10:13 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (26 subsequent siblings)
38 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-08-29 18:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-08-29 18:47 -------
Postponed until GCC 3.4.3.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|3.4.2 |3.4.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
[not found] <20021025133601.8361.gerald@pfeifer.com>
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2004-08-29 18:50 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-09-15 10:13 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-09-18 14:40 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (25 subsequent siblings)
38 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-09-15 10:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
Bug 8361 depends on bug 17497, which changed state.
Bug 17497 Summary: [4.0 Regression] ICE: "address taken, but ADDRESSABLE bit not set"
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17497
What |Old Value |New Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |DUPLICATE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
[not found] <20021025133601.8361.gerald@pfeifer.com>
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2004-09-15 10:13 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-09-18 14:40 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-09-24 15:01 ` bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (24 subsequent siblings)
38 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-09-18 14:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
Bug 8361 depends on bug 17483, which changed state.
Bug 17483 Summary: [4.0 regression] ICE at -O3 when passing a reference.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17483
What |Old Value |New Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Status|ASSIGNED |NEW
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
[not found] <20021025133601.8361.gerald@pfeifer.com>
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2004-09-18 14:40 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-09-24 15:01 ` bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-26 12:34 ` nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (23 subsequent siblings)
38 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread
From: bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-09-24 15:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-09-24 15:01 -------
This PR is unlikely to be closed ever, but some fresh numbers ought to be taken
for mainline. Unfortunately I don't have even a fraction of the compilers in
the PR description here (only 3.3.4-debian and mainline), so no, I'm not
volunteering to do it. :-)
Paolo
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
[not found] <20021025133601.8361.gerald@pfeifer.com>
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2004-09-24 15:01 ` bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-26 12:34 ` nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-26 13:34 ` gerald at pfeifer dot com
` (22 subsequent siblings)
38 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread
From: nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-26 12:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-26 12:34 -------
The updated testcase doesn't compile on i686-pc-linux-gnu, with what looks to be
target independent errors. Here are the first few,
/sw/gcc-3.0.4/include/g++-v3/bits/stl_iterator.h:452: error: type/value mismatch
at argument 1 in template parameter list for '
template<class _Category, class _Tp, class _Distance, class _Pointer, class
_Reference> struct std::iterator'
/sw/gcc-3.0.4/include/g++-v3/bits/stl_iterator.h:452: error: expected a type,
got 'std::iterator_traits<_Iterator>::iterator_
category'
/sw/gcc-3.0.4/include/g++-v3/bits/stl_iterator.h:452: error: type/value mismatch
at argument 2 in template parameter list for '
template<class _Category, class _Tp, class _Distance, class _Pointer, class
_Reference> struct std::iterator'
/sw/gcc-3.0.4/include/g++-v3/bits/stl_iterator.h:452: error: expected a type,
got 'std::iterator_traits<_Iterator>::value_typ
e'
/sw/gcc-3.0.4/include/g++-v3/bits/stl_iterator.h:452: error: type/value mismatch
at argument 3 in template parameter list for '
template<class _Category, class _Tp, class _Distance, class _Pointer, class
_Reference> struct std::iterator'
/sw/gcc-3.0.4/include/g++-v3/bits/stl_iterator.h:452: error: expected a type,
got 'std::iterator_traits<_Iterator>::differenc
e_type'
/sw/gcc-3.0.4/include/g++-v3/bits/stl_iterator.h:452: error: type/value mismatch
at argument 4 in template parameter list for '
template<class _Category, class _Tp, class _Distance, class _Pointer, class
_Reference> struct std::iterator'
/sw/gcc-3.0.4/include/g++-v3/bits/stl_iterator.h:452: error: expected a type,
got 'std::iterator_traits<_Iterator>::pointer'
/sw/gcc-3.0.4/include/g++-v3/bits/stl_iterator.h:452: error: type/value mismatch
at argument 5 in template parameter list for '
template<class _Category, class _Tp, class _Distance, class _Pointer, class
_Reference> struct std::iterator'
/sw/gcc-3.0.4/include/g++-v3/bits/stl_iterator.h:452: error: expected a type,
got 'std::iterator_traits<_Iterator>::reference
'
what's up?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
[not found] <20021025133601.8361.gerald@pfeifer.com>
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-26 12:34 ` nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-26 13:34 ` gerald at pfeifer dot com
2004-10-26 13:37 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (21 subsequent siblings)
38 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread
From: gerald at pfeifer dot com @ 2004-10-26 13:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From gerald at pfeifer dot com 2004-10-26 13:34 -------
Is there anything left to do wrt. the testcases? I saw that Nathan made
some (description-only?) changes.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
[not found] <20021025133601.8361.gerald@pfeifer.com>
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-26 13:34 ` gerald at pfeifer dot com
@ 2004-10-26 13:37 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-30 19:30 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (20 subsequent siblings)
38 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-26 13:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-26 13:37 -------
No, Nathan just got confused on which attachment to take.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
[not found] <20021025133601.8361.gerald@pfeifer.com>
` (17 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-26 13:37 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-30 19:30 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-11-12 12:52 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (19 subsequent siblings)
38 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-30 19:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-30 19:30 -------
I'm not sure how interesting it is to keep this PR open.
I'll be postponing it every time we get to a release for the forseeable future.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|3.4.3 |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
[not found] <20021025133601.8361.gerald@pfeifer.com>
` (18 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-30 19:30 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-11-12 12:52 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-11-18 18:56 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (18 subsequent siblings)
38 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-11-12 12:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-12 12:52 -------
GCC 3.4 (CVS today) takes 35s usr on my machine.
GCC 4.0 (CVS today) takes 46s usr on the same machine.
The difference is entirely in DOM, into-SSA and SSA-other
which is really also into-SSA:
usr sys wall
dominator optimization 3.16 0.02 3.26
tree SSA rewrite 3.24 0.01 3.27
tree SSA other 3.47 0.09 3.40
Per-pass and cummulative time spent (top 10 only):
integration 1.09 2.30% 48.88%
tree PHI insertion 1.21 2.56% 51.44%
loop invariant motion 1.30 2.75% 54.18%
global alloc 1.30 2.75% 56.93%
CSE 1.72 3.63% 60.56%
parser 3.05 6.44% 67.00%
dominator optimization 3.16 6.68% 73.68%
tree SSA rewrite 3.24 6.84% 80.52%
tree SSA other 3.47 7.33% 87.85%
expand 5.75 12.15% 100.00%
Flat profile:
Each sample counts as 0.01 seconds.
% cumulative self self total
time seconds seconds calls s/call s/call name
1.82 8.19 8.19 13878865 0.00 0.00 is_gimple_reg
1.50 14.95 6.76 6594 0.00 0.00 synth_mult
1.28 20.69 5.74 12785589 0.00 0.00 ggc_alloc_stat
1.27 26.38 5.69 3433257 0.00 0.00 free_df_for_stmt
1.25 32.01 5.63 16868123 0.00 0.00 bitmap_set_bit
1.19 37.35 5.34 4846931 0.00 0.00 get_stmt_operands
1.17 42.59 5.24 62034 0.00 0.00 alloc_page
1.15 47.75 5.16 3559 0.00 0.01 compute_immediate_uses
0.99 52.18 4.43 6408238 0.00 0.00 htab_find_slot_with_hash
0.98 56.60 4.42 2104725 0.00 0.00 compute_immediate_uses_for_phi
0.93 60.76 4.16 821051 0.00 0.00 gt_ggc_mx_lang_tree_node
0.91 64.83 4.07 7802758 0.00 0.00 register_new_def
0.90 68.87 4.04 951728 0.00 0.00 rewrite_stmt
0.88 72.82 3.95 30035694 0.00 0.00 bitmap_bit_p
0.84 76.61 3.79 574332 0.00 0.00 cse_insn
0.81 80.26 3.65 196671 0.00 0.00 compute_global_livein
0.81 83.91 3.65 177070 0.00 0.00 insert_phi_nodes_for
0.81 87.54 3.63 2697441 0.00 0.00 for_each_rtx
0.81 91.16 3.62 1079773 0.00 0.00 check_phi_redundancy
which is a different way of saying "all over the map" :-(
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
[not found] <20021025133601.8361.gerald@pfeifer.com>
` (19 preceding siblings ...)
2004-11-12 12:52 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-11-18 18:56 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-11-19 18:22 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (17 subsequent siblings)
38 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-11-18 18:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-18 18:56 -------
I noticed today that my patch for PR 18507 also helps this testcase.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
BugsThisDependsOn| |18507
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
[not found] <20021025133601.8361.gerald@pfeifer.com>
` (20 preceding siblings ...)
2004-11-18 18:56 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-11-19 18:22 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-04 16:31 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (16 subsequent siblings)
38 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-11-19 18:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
Bug 8361 depends on bug 18507, which changed state.
Bug 18507 Summary: block_defs_stack varrray should not be GC'ed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18507
What |Old Value |New Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
[not found] <20021025133601.8361.gerald@pfeifer.com>
` (21 preceding siblings ...)
2004-11-19 18:22 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-12-04 16:31 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-18 4:13 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
38 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-12-04 16:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-04 16:31 -------
Here is the current results for 3.3.2 vs the mainline:
-O0 -O1 -O2 -O3
3.3.2 28.93 42.81 61.13 58.140
mainline 11.06 43.18 54.86 58.35
So we are faster at -O0 but slightly slower at optimization levels but if we trust the numbers for 3.0.4
compared to 3.3, we are still 30% slower than 3.0.4 except at -O0.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
[not found] <20021025133601.8361.gerald@pfeifer.com>
` (22 preceding siblings ...)
2004-12-04 16:31 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-12-18 4:13 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-23 11:16 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
38 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-12-18 4:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-18 04:13 -------
(In reply to comment #39)
> Here is the current results for 3.3.2 vs the mainline:
Now I am getting results that -O3 is faster than -O2, that is not right.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
[not found] <20021025133601.8361.gerald@pfeifer.com>
` (23 preceding siblings ...)
2004-12-18 4:13 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-12-23 11:16 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-10 1:35 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
38 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-12-23 11:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-23 11:16 -------
Gerald, you think you can find some cycles to see where we
stand? I'm very curious how we do for this file, and for
the rest of your test suite.
(It'd be nice if you can compare mainline with some other
official FSF build (3.3, 3.4), because our system compilers
are profiledbootstraped so that gives a skewed picture...)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
[not found] <20021025133601.8361.gerald@pfeifer.com>
` (24 preceding siblings ...)
2004-12-23 11:16 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-10 1:35 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-16 4:50 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
38 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-10 1:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-10 01:35 -------
I am now getting results which say at -O1, we are now faster than 3.3.2, could someone test to make
sure that they get close results to mine?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
[not found] <20021025133601.8361.gerald@pfeifer.com>
` (25 preceding siblings ...)
2005-01-10 1:35 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-16 4:50 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-16 14:16 ` belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru
` (11 subsequent siblings)
38 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-16 4:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-16 04:50 -------
(In reply to comment #39)
> Here is the current results for 3.3.2 vs the mainline:
> -O0 -O1 -O2 -O3
> 3.3.2 28.93 42.81 61.13 58.140
> mainline 11.06 43.18 54.86 58.35
And more current results for the mainline on powerpc-darwin:
11.09 30.55 39.09 38.74
So it looks like this is fixed really and we are 40 % faster than 3.3.2 at -O1 on this testcase.
56% faster at -O2 and 50% at -O3. (which means we have caught back up to and past 3.0.4's number if
the numbers in comment #0 scales the same on powerpc).
Someone should really do timings on x86 to make sure that they give about the same as powerpc.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
[not found] <20021025133601.8361.gerald@pfeifer.com>
` (26 preceding siblings ...)
2005-01-16 4:50 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-16 14:16 ` belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru
2005-01-16 14:21 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
38 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread
From: belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru @ 2005-01-16 14:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru 2005-01-16 14:16 -------
here is the timings for i686-pc-linux-gnu:
3.0.5 3.2.3 3.3.6 3.4.4 4.0.0 4.0.0/3.0.5
-O0 24.5 26.0 22.4 20.5 16.9 -31%
-O1 41.8 48.3 42.8 37.3 44.8 +7%
-O2 53.4 64.9 59.0 61.6 55.9 +5%
-O3 54.5 68.8 62.8 64.8 57.2 +5%
compilers are:
3.0.5 20030502 (prerelease)
3.2.3
3.3.6 20050116 (prerelease)
3.4.4 20050116 (prerelease)
4.0.0 20050116 (experimental)
all compilers compiled by GNU C version 3.3.6 20050116 (prerelease).
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last reconfirmed|2004-02-25 08:21:05 |2005-01-16 14:16:42
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
[not found] <20021025133601.8361.gerald@pfeifer.com>
` (27 preceding siblings ...)
2005-01-16 14:16 ` belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru
@ 2005-01-16 14:21 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-28 14:48 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
38 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-16 14:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-16 14:21 -------
Please don't close this bug, ever! It's GCC nostalgia. ;-)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
[not found] <20021025133601.8361.gerald@pfeifer.com>
` (28 preceding siblings ...)
2005-01-16 14:21 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-28 14:48 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-28 15:15 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
38 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-28 14:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-28 14:48 -------
Can someone do the timings again on x86, I think we are faster at -O1 now than previous versions and
faster for all other optimization levels?
On ppc-darwin we speed up about 3% (-O2/-O3) to 16% (-O1) between the 15th and now.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
[not found] <20021025133601.8361.gerald@pfeifer.com>
` (29 preceding siblings ...)
2005-01-28 14:48 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-28 15:15 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-06 15:34 ` steven@gcc.gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
38 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-28 15:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-28 15:15 -------
I will do timings with a bunch of gcc3.x compilers and gcc4.0.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
[not found] <20021025133601.8361.gerald@pfeifer.com>
` (30 preceding siblings ...)
2005-01-28 15:15 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-02-06 15:34 ` steven@gcc.gnu.org
2005-02-06 16:26 ` steven@gcc.gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
38 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread
From: steven@gcc.gnu.org @ 2005-02-06 15:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-06 16:04 -------
All compilers were bootstrapped, with the following flags:
"--disable-{nls,checking} --enable-languages=c,c++"
Below, gcc40 is CVS HEAD. This was on a 1.6GHz Opteron, with -m32.
The machine has 4GB of memory so garbage collection times are zero,
which may account for some of the rather unexpected results.
For gcc34 and gcc40 I used generate-3.4.ii.bz2 (attachment 3) and
for the other two I used the latest generate.ii.bz2 (attachment 4).
gcc32 gcc33 gcc34 gcc40
-O0 16.439s 16.172s 15.223s 6.674s
-O1 30.265s 25.115s 20.678s 20.305s
-O2 42.678s 34.908s 34.526s 27.418s
-O3 47.469s 47.538s 35.706s 27.896s
I'll try to get numbers on a 32bits machine (i686) as well.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
[not found] <20021025133601.8361.gerald@pfeifer.com>
` (31 preceding siblings ...)
2005-02-06 15:34 ` steven@gcc.gnu.org
@ 2005-02-06 16:26 ` steven@gcc.gnu.org
2005-02-06 16:54 ` steven@gcc.gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
38 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread
From: steven@gcc.gnu.org @ 2005-02-06 16:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-06 16:49 -------
Similar numbers on a 1.4GHz Xeon (i686):
gcc32 gcc33 gcc34 gcc40
-O0 18.865s 15.107s 13.286s 10.193s
-O1 33.511s 30.096s 24.693s 23.543s
-O2 46.527s 42.657s 42.618s 33.549s
-O3 49.537s 43.887s 44.056s 33.917s
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
[not found] <20021025133601.8361.gerald@pfeifer.com>
` (32 preceding siblings ...)
2005-02-06 16:26 ` steven@gcc.gnu.org
@ 2005-02-06 16:54 ` steven@gcc.gnu.org
2005-02-07 2:13 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
38 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread
From: steven@gcc.gnu.org @ 2005-02-06 16:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-06 16:54 -------
Considering the numbers from #44, #48, and #49, I think we can conclude
that we are back to the compile times GCC 3.0 used to have. It should
be noted that we have a significantly larger memory foot print though,
and some of the speedups (especially from GCC 3.2 to GCC 3.3) came from
smaller hacks to the GC system (collect less often, etc.). But then,
most people just use the compiler with -O[0123] and no fancy --params
and similar hacks, so from a user POV this bug really is fixed, mostly.
I'm not sure if it is useful to keep this bug open any longer.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
[not found] <20021025133601.8361.gerald@pfeifer.com>
` (33 preceding siblings ...)
2005-02-06 16:54 ` steven@gcc.gnu.org
@ 2005-02-07 2:13 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-08 10:19 ` gerald at pfeifer dot com
` (3 subsequent siblings)
38 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread
From: ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-02-07 2:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-06 18:08 -------
If you want to compare how the memory footprint has affected performance, use
these flags in 3.3 and later:
--param ggc-min-expand=30 --param ggc-min-heapsize=4096
Those are the hardcoded values that 3.2 uses to tune how often the collector
runs. I would be interested to see how later versions behave when supplied
these flags, this will simulate how fast we compile on memory constrained boxes
relative to 3.2.
Another perhaps more interesting test (but one which will take slightly more
effort for you) would be to see how raising these values in 3.2 will affect
performance. Some distros (RH?) did in fact raise them in their releases so
users may be comparing their cranked distro gcc-3.2 to our FSF releases.
Of course since these values are hardcoded in 3.2, you'd have to rebuild that
compiler, however I think an apples-to-apples comparsion is in order before
closing this PR.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
[not found] <20021025133601.8361.gerald@pfeifer.com>
` (34 preceding siblings ...)
2005-02-07 2:13 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-02-08 10:19 ` gerald at pfeifer dot com
2005-07-23 22:14 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.4/4.0/4.1 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
38 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread
From: gerald at pfeifer dot com @ 2005-02-08 10:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From gerald at pfeifer dot com 2005-02-07 23:09 -------
I had done extensive benchmarks around New Year, based on Steven's request in
comment #41. Unfortunately I lost most of that data directly before posting
it here and couldn't repeat everything, but coincidently I could save exactly
those parts that Steven did not check now. ;-) CVS refers to the state in
early January.
The following are for the full application which generate.ii is only one part
of, albeit a representative one.
First the time to build with -O3 and the resulting binary size:
--------+ stripped-+ build time
2.95 | 4577588 | 170.78 real
3.2.3 | 4106176 | 219.70 real
3.3 CVS | 1073280 | 209.02 real
3.4 CVS | 1079120 | 189.82 real
4.0 CVS | 1081776 | 164.86 real
Then some benchmarks results for the binaries; times in seconds, smaller is
better:
| 2.95 | 3.2.3 | 3.3 CVS | 3.4 CVS | 4.0 CVS |
--------------+--------+--------+---------+---------+---------+
STRATCOMP2-ALL| 17.96 | 127.44 | 89.51 | 21.02 | 20.47 |
STRATCOMP-BRAVE| 77.09 | 78.33 | 77.70 | 83.33 | 82.83 |
2QBF1| 11.68 | 13.72 | 13.45 | 13.75 | 12.31 |
PRIMEIMPL2| 7.52 | 8.05 | 7.21 | 7.00 | 7.42 |
ANCESTOR| 70.44 | 69.91 | 71.22 | 67.36 | 61.36 |
3COL-SIMPLEX1| 3.67 | 3.81 | 3.86 | 3.77 | 3.52 |
3COL-LADDER| 77.99 | 81.11 | 81.72 | 73.23 | 71.58 |
3COL-N-LADDER| 1.68 | 2.82 | 2.76 | 1.81 | 1.81 |
3COL-RANDOM1| 8.38 | 8.33 | 7.84 | 8.13 | 8.61 |
HP-RANDOM1| 6.52 | 7.29 | 7.19 | 7.90 | 7.65 |
HAMCYCLE-FREE| 68.46 | 88.72 | 82.77 | 64.63 | 66.40 |
DECOMP2| 7.75 | 8.48 | 8.98 | 9.87 | 8.80 |
BW-P5-Esra-a| 34.76 | 36.23 | 35.20 | 31.39 | 31.41 |
BW-P8-nopush| 90.17 | 89.79 | 88.17 | 81.97 | 83.51 |
BW-P6-pushbin| 60.23 | 62.86 | 61.34 | 59.09 | 59.94 |
BW-P7-nopushbin| 84.94 | 87.46 | 83.80 | 79.93 | 81.23 |
3SAT-1| 23.91 | 24.91 | 22.55 | 22.23 | 23.19 |
3SAT-1-CONSTRAINT| 13.97 | 14.76 | 13.51 | 13.37 | 14.15 |
HANOI-Towers| 737.91 | 632.95 | 636.27 | 680.56 | 661.77 |
RAMSEY(3,7)!=21| 68.93 | 73.92 | 71.77 | 74.71 | 73.59 |
RAMSEY(3,7)!=21, normal| 83.92 | 84.02 | 83.32 | 81.23 | 79.21 |
RAMSEY(4,6)!=25| 92.53 | 99.69 | 95.06 | 96.33 | 90.40 |
RAMSEY(4,6)!=26| 130.68 | 142.55 | 134.61 | 134.75 | 124.73 |
CRISTAL| 5.75 | 5.98 | 5.67 | 5.56 | 5.29 |
HANOI-K|1176.06 |1289.65 | 1252.41 | 1154.43 | 1082.85 |
21-QUEENS| 7.09 | 7.12 | 6.30 | 6.30 | 6.31 |
MSTDir[V=13,A=40]| 14.34 | 13.02 | 12.34 | 11.50 | 11.69 |
MSTDir[V=15,A=40]| 14.20 | 12.98 | 12.43 | 11.47 | 11.65 |
MSTUndir[V=13,A=40]| 7.18 | 7.07 | 6.53 | 6.14 | 6.34 |
MSTUndir[V=15,A=40]| 116.86 | 113.12 | 104.71 | 99.37 | 103.56 |
TIMETABLING_4C| 137.64 | 140.79 | 138.66 | 173.87 | 165.50 |
SCHOOL_TIMETABLING| 328.57 | - | - | 329.02 | 310.30 |
So, in terms of build time and binary size we are fine, and also benchmark
performance is nicely improved on average (with some regressions, though).
For whether we can close this now, I'll just refer to comment #32 and
comment #45 (and Kaveh's note on memory usage).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.4/4.0/4.1 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
[not found] <20021025133601.8361.gerald@pfeifer.com>
` (35 preceding siblings ...)
2005-02-08 10:19 ` gerald at pfeifer dot com
@ 2005-07-23 22:14 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-09-18 19:17 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-09-18 19:27 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
38 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-07-23 22:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-23 21:58 -------
We have regressioned since the last time someone reported on this one:
-O0 -O1 -O2 -O3
11.1 41.7 55.6 65.9
For -O3, the following passes stand out for compile time:
tree PTA : 4.04 ( 6%) usr 0.11 ( 1%) sys 4.45 ( 5%) wall 9319 kB ( 2%) ggc
tree alias analysis : 5.34 ( 7%) usr 1.42 ( 9%) sys 7.07 ( 8%) wall 11463 kB ( 2%) ggc
parser : 4.48 ( 6%) usr 2.16 (14%) sys 7.11 ( 8%) wall 95214 kB (18%) ggc
tree operand scan : 4.28 ( 6%) usr 2.86 (19%) sys 7.41 ( 8%) wall 22145 kB ( 4%) ggc
dominator optimization: 3.60 ( 5%) usr 0.21 ( 1%) sys 4.02 ( 4%) wall 16448 kB ( 3%) ggc
expand : 3.13 ( 4%) usr 0.27 ( 2%) sys 3.53 ( 4%) wall 34210 kB ( 6%) ggc
For memory usage:
integration : 2.70 ( 4%) usr 0.30 ( 2%) sys 3.24 ( 4%) wall 124856 kB (24%) ggc
parser : 4.48 ( 6%) usr 2.16 (14%) sys 7.11 ( 8%) wall 95214 kB (18%) ggc
At -O0 compile time:
parser : 4.55 (33%) usr 2.00 (29%) sys 6.75 (31%) wall 94454 kB (50%) ggc
name lookup : 1.82 (13%) usr 2.98 (43%) sys 5.02 (23%) wall 17923 kB ( 9%) ggc
expand : 1.57 (11%) usr 0.40 ( 6%) sys 2.04 ( 9%) wall 33674 kB (18%) ggc
global alloc : 1.22 ( 9%) usr 0.06 ( 1%) sys 1.36 ( 6%) wall 8858 kB ( 5%) ggc
for memory usage, just the parser.
at -O1:
parser : 4.23 ( 9%) usr 2.23 (17%) sys 6.94 (11%) wall 94371 kB (22%) ggc
integration : 2.46 ( 5%) usr 0.29 ( 2%) sys 2.70 ( 4%) wall 104683 kB (25%) ggc
tree PTA : 3.48 ( 7%) usr 0.09 ( 1%) sys 3.76 ( 6%) wall 8378 kB ( 2%) ggc
tree alias analysis : 3.22 ( 7%) usr 1.23 ( 9%) sys 4.69 ( 7%) wall 6203 kB ( 1%) ggc
tree SSA incremental : 2.52 ( 5%) usr 0.30 ( 2%) sys 3.06 ( 5%) wall 3278 kB ( 1%) ggc
tree operand scan : 3.56 ( 7%) usr 2.32 (18%) sys 6.40 (10%) wall 18232 kB ( 4%) ggc
memory usage:
integration : 2.46 ( 5%) usr 0.29 ( 2%) sys 2.70 ( 4%) wall 104683 kB (25%) ggc
parser : 4.23 ( 9%) usr 2.23 (17%) sys 6.94 (11%) wall 94371 kB (22%) ggc
-O2:
expand : 2.90 ( 5%) usr 0.24 ( 2%) sys 3.02 ( 4%) wall 31476 kB ( 7%) ggc
tree SSA incremental : 2.67 ( 4%) usr 0.38 ( 3%) sys 3.30 ( 4%) wall 6252 kB ( 1%) ggc
tree operand scan : 3.76 ( 6%) usr 2.49 (18%) sys 6.05 ( 8%) wall 19509 kB ( 4%) ggc
dominator optimization: 2.91 ( 5%) usr 0.13 ( 1%) sys 3.14 ( 4%) wall 14117 kB ( 3%) ggc
tree PTA : 3.46 ( 6%) usr 0.15 ( 1%) sys 3.79 ( 5%) wall 8394 kB ( 2%) ggc
tree alias analysis : 3.97 ( 6%) usr 1.40 (10%) sys 5.65 ( 7%) wall 10165 kB ( 2%) ggc
parser : 4.41 ( 7%) usr 2.34 (17%) sys 7.21 ( 9%) wall 94371 kB (20%) ggc
integration : 2.48 ( 4%) usr 0.23 ( 2%) sys 2.70 ( 3%) wall 104710 kB (22%) ggc
memory usage:
parser : 4.41 ( 7%) usr 2.34 (17%) sys 7.21 ( 9%) wall 94371 kB (20%) ggc
integration : 2.48 ( 4%) usr 0.23 ( 2%) sys 2.70 ( 3%) wall 104710 kB (22%) ggc
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last reconfirmed|2005-01-16 14:16:42 |2005-07-23 21:58:55
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.4/4.0/4.1 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
[not found] <20021025133601.8361.gerald@pfeifer.com>
` (36 preceding siblings ...)
2005-07-23 22:14 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.4/4.0/4.1 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-09-18 19:17 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-09-18 19:27 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
38 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-09-18 19:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-18 19:17 -------
Current numbers for 4.0.0 vs 4.1.0:
pc64:~/src/pr8361> time ~/onetest.release/bin/gcc pr8361.ii -S -m32 -O1
21.137u 0.399s 0:21.89 98.3% 0+0k 0+0io 3pf+0w
pc64:~/src/pr8361> time gcc-4.0 pr8361.ii -S -m32 -O1
14.059u 0.269s 0:14.46 98.9% 0+0k 0+0io 2pf+0w
This on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
-ftime-report for 4.1.0:
Execution times (seconds)
garbage collection : 0.35 ( 2%) usr 0.01 ( 1%) sys 0.37 ( 2%) wall 0 kB ( 0%) ggc
callgraph construction: 0.13 ( 1%) usr 0.01 ( 1%) sys 0.18 ( 1%) wall 4538 kB ( 1%) ggc
callgraph optimization: 0.01 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.03 ( 0%) wall 1193 kB ( 0%) ggc
ipa reference : 0.07 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.08 ( 0%) wall 273 kB ( 0%) ggc
ipa pure const : 0.04 ( 0%) usr 0.01 ( 1%) sys 0.04 ( 0%) wall 0 kB ( 0%) ggc
cfg construction : 0.02 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.04 ( 0%) wall 1607 kB ( 0%) ggc
cfg cleanup : 0.14 ( 1%) usr 0.01 ( 1%) sys 0.13 ( 1%) wall 103 kB ( 0%) ggc
trivially dead code : 0.10 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.17 ( 1%) wall 0 kB ( 0%) ggc
life analysis : 0.52 ( 2%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.52 ( 2%) wall 3245 kB ( 0%) ggc
life info update : 0.04 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.04 ( 0%) wall 292 kB ( 0%) ggc
alias analysis : 0.12 ( 1%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.17 ( 1%) wall 2150 kB ( 0%) ggc
register scan : 0.16 ( 1%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.08 ( 0%) wall 211 kB ( 0%) ggc
rebuild jump labels : 0.03 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.03 ( 0%) wall 1 kB ( 0%) ggc
preprocessing : 0.13 ( 1%) usr 0.15 ( 8%) sys 0.28 ( 1%) wall 591 kB ( 0%) ggc
parser : 1.80 ( 8%) usr 0.42 (23%) sys 2.35 (10%) wall 154459 kB (23%) ggc
name lookup : 0.57 ( 3%) usr 0.46 (25%) sys 0.97 ( 4%) wall 31048 kB ( 5%) ggc
inline heuristics : 0.07 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.06 ( 0%) wall 7605 kB ( 1%) ggc
integration : 1.14 ( 5%) usr 0.01 ( 1%) sys 1.14 ( 5%) wall 162853 kB (24%) ggc
tree gimplify : 0.30 ( 1%) usr 0.02 ( 1%) sys 0.28 ( 1%) wall 14133 kB ( 2%) ggc
tree eh : 0.03 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.00 ( 0%) wall 1795 kB ( 0%) ggc
tree CFG construction : 0.02 ( 0%) usr 0.01 ( 1%) sys 0.04 ( 0%) wall 11718 kB ( 2%) ggc
tree CFG cleanup : 0.49 ( 2%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.68 ( 3%) wall 3669 kB ( 1%) ggc
tree copy propagation : 0.60 ( 3%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.63 ( 3%) wall 1441 kB ( 0%) ggc
tree store copy prop : 0.12 ( 1%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.10 ( 0%) wall 181 kB ( 0%) ggc
tree find ref. vars : 0.25 ( 1%) usr 0.01 ( 1%) sys 0.29 ( 1%) wall 22675 kB ( 3%) ggc
tree PTA : 1.61 ( 7%) usr 0.02 ( 1%) sys 1.72 ( 7%) wall 10266 kB ( 2%) ggc
tree alias analysis : 1.05 ( 5%) usr 0.15 ( 8%) sys 1.23 ( 5%) wall 11045 kB ( 2%) ggc
tree PHI insertion : 0.29 ( 1%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.29 ( 1%) wall 16546 kB ( 2%) ggc
tree SSA rewrite : 0.65 ( 3%) usr 0.01 ( 1%) sys 0.76 ( 3%) wall 30896 kB ( 5%) ggc
tree SSA other : 0.15 ( 1%) usr 0.06 ( 3%) sys 0.20 ( 1%) wall 580 kB ( 0%) ggc
tree SSA incremental : 1.58 ( 7%) usr 0.01 ( 1%) sys 1.34 ( 6%) wall 6475 kB ( 1%) ggc
tree operand scan : 1.15 ( 5%) usr 0.25 (14%) sys 1.47 ( 6%) wall 15753 kB ( 2%) ggc
dominator optimization: 0.80 ( 4%) usr 0.04 ( 2%) sys 0.84 ( 4%) wall 14884 kB ( 2%) ggc
tree SRA : 0.22 ( 1%) usr 0.02 ( 1%) sys 0.20 ( 1%) wall 11416 kB ( 2%) ggc
tree STORE-CCP : 0.05 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.04 ( 0%) wall 165 kB ( 0%) ggc
tree CCP : 0.21 ( 1%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.19 ( 1%) wall 601 kB ( 0%) ggc
tree split crit edges : 0.03 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.03 ( 0%) wall 6441 kB ( 1%) ggc
tree reassociation : 0.05 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.02 ( 0%) wall 1 kB ( 0%) ggc
tree FRE : 0.51 ( 2%) usr 0.02 ( 1%) sys 0.53 ( 2%) wall 16049 kB ( 2%) ggc
tree code sinking : 0.06 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.08 ( 0%) wall 54 kB ( 0%) ggc
tree linearize phis : 0.00 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.01 ( 0%) wall 16 kB ( 0%) ggc
tree forward propagate: 0.04 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.14 ( 1%) wall 3515 kB ( 1%) ggc
tree conservative DCE : 0.39 ( 2%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.49 ( 2%) wall 0 kB ( 0%) ggc
tree aggressive DCE : 0.06 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.08 ( 0%) wall 0 kB ( 0%) ggc
tree DSE : 0.11 ( 1%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.07 ( 0%) wall 85 kB ( 0%) ggc
PHI merge : 0.01 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.01 ( 0%) wall 966 kB ( 0%) ggc
tree loop bounds : 0.14 ( 1%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.05 ( 0%) wall 1796 kB ( 0%) ggc
loop invariant motion : 0.04 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.08 ( 0%) wall 158 kB ( 0%) ggc
tree canonical iv : 0.03 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.03 ( 0%) wall 955 kB ( 0%) ggc
scev constant prop : 0.00 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.05 ( 0%) wall 721 kB ( 0%) ggc
complete unrolling : 0.00 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.02 ( 0%) wall 1340 kB ( 0%) ggc
tree iv optimization : 0.15 ( 1%) usr 0.01 ( 1%) sys 0.18 ( 1%) wall 7715 kB ( 1%) ggc
tree loop init : 0.11 ( 1%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.08 ( 0%) wall 6 kB ( 0%) ggc
tree copy headers : 0.06 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.05 ( 0%) wall 6478 kB ( 1%) ggc
tree SSA uncprop : 0.02 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.00 ( 0%) wall 0 kB ( 0%) ggc
tree SSA to normal : 0.31 ( 1%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.41 ( 2%) wall 3411 kB ( 1%) ggc
tree rename SSA copies: 0.10 ( 0%) usr 0.01 ( 1%) sys 0.16 ( 1%) wall 0 kB ( 0%) ggc
dominance frontiers : 0.07 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.09 ( 0%) wall 0 kB ( 0%) ggc
expand : 1.28 ( 6%) usr 0.02 ( 1%) sys 1.12 ( 5%) wall 43499 kB ( 7%) ggc
varconst : 0.08 ( 0%) usr 0.02 ( 1%) sys 0.05 ( 0%) wall 403 kB ( 0%) ggc
jump : 0.05 ( 0%) usr 0.01 ( 1%) sys 0.06 ( 0%) wall 1203 kB ( 0%) ggc
CSE : 0.22 ( 1%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.20 ( 1%) wall 647 kB ( 0%) ggc
loop analysis : 0.10 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.12 ( 1%) wall 1936 kB ( 0%) ggc
branch prediction : 0.20 ( 1%) usr 0.01 ( 1%) sys 0.18 ( 1%) wall 1979 kB ( 0%) ggc
flow analysis : 0.01 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.01 ( 0%) wall 2 kB ( 0%) ggc
combiner : 0.46 ( 2%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.50 ( 2%) wall 5390 kB ( 1%) ggc
if-conversion : 0.08 ( 0%) usr 0.01 ( 1%) sys 0.06 ( 0%) wall 308 kB ( 0%) ggc
local alloc : 0.25 ( 1%) usr 0.01 ( 1%) sys 0.26 ( 1%) wall 1622 kB ( 0%) ggc
global alloc : 0.85 ( 4%) usr 0.01 ( 1%) sys 0.78 ( 3%) wall 9331 kB ( 1%) ggc
reload CSE regs : 0.17 ( 1%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.17 ( 1%) wall 2917 kB ( 0%) ggc
flow 2 : 0.05 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.03 ( 0%) wall 1058 kB ( 0%) ggc
if-conversion 2 : 0.07 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.03 ( 0%) wall 37 kB ( 0%) ggc
rename registers : 0.14 ( 1%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.15 ( 1%) wall 21 kB ( 0%) ggc
machine dep reorg : 0.12 ( 1%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.19 ( 1%) wall 86 kB ( 0%) ggc
shorten branches : 0.02 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.03 ( 0%) wall 0 kB ( 0%) ggc
final : 0.24 ( 1%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.17 ( 1%) wall 1199 kB ( 0%) ggc
symout : 0.00 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.01 ( 0%) wall 180 kB ( 0%) ggc
TOTAL : 21.70 1.81 23.79 667733 kB
for 4.0.0:
Execution times (seconds)
garbage collection : 0.32 ( 2%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.32 ( 2%) wall
callgraph construction: 0.08 ( 1%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.08 ( 0%) wall
callgraph optimization: 0.04 ( 0%) usr 0.01 ( 1%) sys 0.04 ( 0%) wall
cfg construction : 0.03 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.02 ( 0%) wall
cfg cleanup : 0.06 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.08 ( 0%) wall
trivially dead code : 0.08 ( 1%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.09 ( 1%) wall
life analysis : 0.43 ( 3%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.44 ( 3%) wall
life info update : 0.05 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.13 ( 1%) wall
alias analysis : 0.08 ( 1%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.13 ( 1%) wall
register scan : 0.06 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.14 ( 1%) wall
rebuild jump labels : 0.03 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.02 ( 0%) wall
preprocessing : 0.11 ( 1%) usr 0.15 ( 9%) sys 0.22 ( 1%) wall
parser : 2.00 (14%) usr 0.46 (29%) sys 2.20 (13%) wall
name lookup : 0.49 ( 3%) usr 0.44 (28%) sys 1.12 ( 7%) wall
integration : 0.67 ( 5%) usr 0.03 ( 2%) sys 0.77 ( 5%) wall
tree gimplify : 0.23 ( 2%) usr 0.01 ( 1%) sys 0.35 ( 2%) wall
tree eh : 0.05 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.06 ( 0%) wall
tree CFG construction : 0.12 ( 1%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.11 ( 1%) wall
tree CFG cleanup : 0.22 ( 2%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.15 ( 1%) wall
tree find referenced vars: 0.23 ( 2%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.20 ( 1%) wall
tree PTA : 0.37 ( 3%) usr 0.01 ( 1%) sys 0.45 ( 3%) wall
tree alias analysis : 0.51 ( 3%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.56 ( 3%) wall
tree PHI insertion : 0.17 ( 1%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.24 ( 1%) wall
tree SSA rewrite : 0.54 ( 4%) usr 0.01 ( 1%) sys 0.47 ( 3%) wall
tree SSA other : 0.58 ( 4%) usr 0.16 (10%) sys 0.85 ( 5%) wall
tree operand scan : 0.51 ( 3%) usr 0.21 (13%) sys 0.68 ( 4%) wall
dominator optimization: 0.76 ( 5%) usr 0.05 ( 3%) sys 0.66 ( 4%) wall
tree SRA : 0.12 ( 1%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.13 ( 1%) wall
tree CCP : 0.07 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.12 ( 1%) wall
tree split crit edges : 0.04 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.04 ( 0%) wall
tree remove redundant PHIs: 0.26 ( 2%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.33 ( 2%) wall
tree linearize phis : 0.00 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.01 ( 0%) wall
tree forward propagate: 0.15 ( 1%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.12 ( 1%) wall
tree conservative DCE : 0.26 ( 2%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.26 ( 2%) wall
tree aggressive DCE : 0.04 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.05 ( 0%) wall
tree DSE : 0.06 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.07 ( 0%) wall
PHI merge : 0.01 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.00 ( 0%) wall
tree record loop bounds: 0.05 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.04 ( 0%) wall
loop invariant motion : 0.05 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.08 ( 0%) wall
tree canonical iv creation: 0.03 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.01 ( 0%) wall
tree iv optimization : 0.22 ( 2%) usr 0.01 ( 1%) sys 0.13 ( 1%) wall
tree loop init : 0.12 ( 1%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.05 ( 0%) wall
tree loop fini : 0.00 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.01 ( 0%) wall
tree copy headers : 0.12 ( 1%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.17 ( 1%) wall
tree SSA to normal : 0.33 ( 2%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.30 ( 2%) wall
tree NRV optimization : 0.00 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.01 ( 0%) wall
tree rename SSA copies: 0.11 ( 1%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.10 ( 1%) wall
dominance frontiers : 0.00 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.01 ( 0%) wall
expand : 0.97 ( 7%) usr 0.01 ( 1%) sys 1.06 ( 6%) wall
varconst : 0.04 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.11 ( 1%) wall
jump : 0.04 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.03 ( 0%) wall
CSE : 0.27 ( 2%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.22 ( 1%) wall
loop analysis : 0.08 ( 1%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.09 ( 1%) wall
branch prediction : 0.18 ( 1%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.19 ( 1%) wall
flow analysis : 0.00 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.02 ( 0%) wall
combiner : 0.39 ( 3%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.35 ( 2%) wall
if-conversion : 0.02 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.08 ( 0%) wall
local alloc : 0.22 ( 2%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.20 ( 1%) wall
global alloc : 0.64 ( 4%) usr 0.01 ( 1%) sys 0.66 ( 4%) wall
reload CSE regs : 0.21 ( 1%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.13 ( 1%) wall
flow 2 : 0.05 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.05 ( 0%) wall
if-conversion 2 : 0.07 ( 0%) usr 0.01 ( 1%) sys 0.02 ( 0%) wall
rename registers : 0.12 ( 1%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.12 ( 1%) wall
machine dep reorg : 0.05 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.11 ( 1%) wall
shorten branches : 0.10 ( 1%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.07 ( 0%) wall
final : 0.18 ( 1%) usr 0.02 ( 1%) sys 0.24 ( 1%) wall
symout : 0.00 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.01 ( 0%) wall
rest of compilation : 0.12 ( 1%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.03 ( 0%) wall
TOTAL : 14.62 1.60 16.43
14.630u 1.630s 0:16.46 98.7% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.4/4.0/4.1 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
[not found] <20021025133601.8361.gerald@pfeifer.com>
` (37 preceding siblings ...)
2005-09-18 19:17 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-09-18 19:27 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
38 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-09-18 19:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-18 19:27 -------
Even the -fno-inline case slowed down too:
pc64:~/src/pr8361> time ~/onetest.release/bin/gcc pr8361.ii -S -m32 -O1 -fno-inline
11.171u 0.359s 0:11.66 98.7% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
pc64:~/src/pr8361> time gcc-4.0 pr8361.ii -S -m32 -O1 -fno-inline
9.578u 0.295s 0:10.02 98.4% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
interesting part of 4.1 time report:
combiner : 0.36 ( 3%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.31 ( 2%) wall 1933 kB ( 0%) ggc
local alloc : 0.33 ( 3%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.31 ( 2%) wall 3654 kB ( 1%) ggc
global alloc : 0.85 ( 8%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.75 ( 6%) wall 12187 kB ( 3%) ggc
tree operand scan : 0.25 ( 2%) usr 0.10 ( 7%) sys 0.29 ( 2%) wall 9315 kB ( 2%) ggc
dominator optimization: 0.35 ( 3%) usr 0.01 ( 1%) sys 0.34 ( 3%) wall 3938 kB ( 1%) ggc
tree PTA : 0.46 ( 4%) usr 0.02 ( 1%) sys 0.53 ( 4%) wall 19358 kB ( 5%) ggc
tree alias analysis : 0.25 ( 2%) usr 0.04 ( 3%) sys 0.27 ( 2%) wall 9734 kB ( 2%) ggc
tree SSA rewrite : 0.19 ( 2%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.24 ( 2%) wall 10314 kB ( 3%) ggc
tree SSA incremental : 0.32 ( 3%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.26 ( 2%) wall 2956 kB ( 1%) ggc
parser : 1.71 (15%) usr 0.42 (28%) sys 2.07 (16%) wall 154459 kB (39%) ggc
life analysis : 0.57 ( 5%) usr 0.01 ( 1%) sys 0.51 ( 4%) wall 3127 kB ( 1%) ggc
corresponding 4.0 time report:
combiner : 0.31 ( 3%) usr 0.01 ( 1%) sys 0.28 ( 2%) wall
local alloc : 0.35 ( 4%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.47 ( 4%) wall
global alloc : 0.74 ( 7%) usr 0.01 ( 1%) sys 0.96 ( 8%) wall
tree operand scan : 0.18 ( 2%) usr 0.07 ( 5%) sys 0.23 ( 2%) wall
dominator optimization: 0.42 ( 4%) usr 0.01 ( 1%) sys 0.31 ( 3%) wall
tree PTA : 0.14 ( 1%) usr 0.01 ( 1%) sys 0.11 ( 1%) wall
tree alias analysis : 0.05 ( 1%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.07 ( 1%) wall
tree SSA rewrite : 0.17 ( 2%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.18 ( 2%) wall
parser : 1.71 (17%) usr 0.41 (32%) sys 2.22 (20%) wall
life analysis : 0.43 ( 4%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.61 ( 5%) wall
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last reconfirmed|2005-07-25 01:54:59 |2005-09-18 19:27:11
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread