* [Bug c++/19445] 50 fold compile time increase between gcc-3,4 and gcc-4,0 on included code
2005-01-14 16:52 [Bug c++/19445] New: 50 fold compile time increase between gcc-3,4 and gcc-4,0 on included code phil at fsel dot com
@ 2005-01-14 16:53 ` phil at fsel dot com
2005-01-14 17:02 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: phil at fsel dot com @ 2005-01-14 16:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From phil at fsel dot com 2005-01-14 16:53 -------
Created an attachment (id=7959)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7959&action=view)
.ii file
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19445
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/19445] 50 fold compile time increase between gcc-3,4 and gcc-4,0 on included code
2005-01-14 16:52 [Bug c++/19445] New: 50 fold compile time increase between gcc-3,4 and gcc-4,0 on included code phil at fsel dot com
2005-01-14 16:53 ` [Bug c++/19445] " phil at fsel dot com
@ 2005-01-14 17:02 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-14 20:29 ` phil at fsel dot com
` (8 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-14 17:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-14 17:02 -------
Can you check with --disable-checking as checking is turned on by default on the mainline of 4.0.0.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19445
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/19445] 50 fold compile time increase between gcc-3,4 and gcc-4,0 on included code
2005-01-14 16:52 [Bug c++/19445] New: 50 fold compile time increase between gcc-3,4 and gcc-4,0 on included code phil at fsel dot com
2005-01-14 16:53 ` [Bug c++/19445] " phil at fsel dot com
2005-01-14 17:02 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-14 20:29 ` phil at fsel dot com
2005-01-14 21:20 ` [Bug tree-optimization/19445] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: phil at fsel dot com @ 2005-01-14 20:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From phil at fsel dot com 2005-01-14 20:29 -------
Subject: Re: 50 fold compile time increase between gcc-3,4 and gcc-4,0 on included code
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 05:02:48PM -0000, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Can you check with --disable-checking as checking is turned on by
> default on the mainline of 4.0.0.
Not as bad, but still pretty awful:
$ /scribble/phil/gcc/install/bin/g++ -v
Using built-in specs.
Configured with: ../gcc/configure --prefix=/scribble/phil/gcc/install
--disable-checking --enable-languages=c++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.0.0 20050114 (experimental)
$ time /scribble/phil/gcc/install/bin/g++ -O -c
list1.cpp
real 0m1.758s
user 0m1.677s
sys 0m0.035s
$ time gcc-3.4 -O -c list1.cpp
real 0m0.101s
user 0m0.069s
sys 0m0.009s
cheers, Phil
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19445
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/19445] 50 fold compile time increase between gcc-3,4 and gcc-4,0 on included code
2005-01-14 16:52 [Bug c++/19445] New: 50 fold compile time increase between gcc-3,4 and gcc-4,0 on included code phil at fsel dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2005-01-14 20:29 ` phil at fsel dot com
@ 2005-01-14 21:20 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-14 21:20 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-14 21:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-14 21:20 -------
There are two problems, one we are not decting that unhook will not throw (but that did not happen in
3.4.0 either) and we are inlining unhook into itself which is what is causing the compile time to go up.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|WAITING |NEW
Component|c++ |tree-optimization
Ever Confirmed| |1
Keywords| |compile-time-hog
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-01-14 21:20:03
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19445
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/19445] 50 fold compile time increase between gcc-3,4 and gcc-4,0 on included code
2005-01-14 16:52 [Bug c++/19445] New: 50 fold compile time increase between gcc-3,4 and gcc-4,0 on included code phil at fsel dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2005-01-14 21:20 ` [Bug tree-optimization/19445] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-14 21:20 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-14 21:24 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-14 21:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-14 21:20 -------
If in the source I mark unhook as it does not throw anything, the compile time goes back down to what
should be.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19445
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/19445] 50 fold compile time increase between gcc-3,4 and gcc-4,0 on included code
2005-01-14 16:52 [Bug c++/19445] New: 50 fold compile time increase between gcc-3,4 and gcc-4,0 on included code phil at fsel dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2005-01-14 21:20 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-14 21:24 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-14 21:50 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-14 21:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-14 21:24 -------
One more thing with -Os the compile time is fine in 4.0.0 because we don't duplicate final blocks.
I am not marking this as a regression because we produce better code with the mainline than 3.4/3.3
for this case. Basically the problem can be fixed by making gcc not inline a function into itself or
making the decting if a function does not throw better.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19445
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/19445] 50 fold compile time increase between gcc-3,4 and gcc-4,0 on included code
2005-01-14 16:52 [Bug c++/19445] New: 50 fold compile time increase between gcc-3,4 and gcc-4,0 on included code phil at fsel dot com
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2005-01-14 21:24 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-14 21:50 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-14 21:54 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-14 21:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-14 21:50 -------
Here is a short testcase for when we should dect a function throws nothing:
int g(int i);
int h(int i) throw();
inline int f(int i) { h(i);if(i<10)return 1;else return g(i-1) + i;}
inline int g(int i) { return f(i); }
int temp(int i) throw()
{
return g(i);
}
I will file a new bug about this one.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19445
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/19445] 50 fold compile time increase between gcc-3,4 and gcc-4,0 on included code
2005-01-14 16:52 [Bug c++/19445] New: 50 fold compile time increase between gcc-3,4 and gcc-4,0 on included code phil at fsel dot com
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2005-01-14 21:50 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-14 21:54 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-14 21:55 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-14 21:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-14 21:54 -------
dect == detect (I was sloppy at writting that).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19445
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/19445] 50 fold compile time increase between gcc-3,4 and gcc-4,0 on included code
2005-01-14 16:52 [Bug c++/19445] New: 50 fold compile time increase between gcc-3,4 and gcc-4,0 on included code phil at fsel dot com
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2005-01-14 21:54 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-14 21:55 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-17 11:06 ` phil at fsel dot com
2005-07-25 4:42 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-14 21:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
BugsThisDependsOn| |19452
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19445
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/19445] 50 fold compile time increase between gcc-3,4 and gcc-4,0 on included code
2005-01-14 16:52 [Bug c++/19445] New: 50 fold compile time increase between gcc-3,4 and gcc-4,0 on included code phil at fsel dot com
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2005-01-14 21:55 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-17 11:06 ` phil at fsel dot com
2005-07-25 4:42 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: phil at fsel dot com @ 2005-01-17 11:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From phil at fsel dot com 2005-01-17 11:06 -------
Subject: Re: 50 fold compile time increase between gcc-3,4 and gcc-4,0 on included code
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 09:20:43PM -0000, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> If in the source I mark unhook as it does not throw anything, the compile time goes back down to what
> should be.
Indeed. And I can confirm that the tree-profiling branch doesn't show
the problem on the original source code either.
cheers, Phil
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19445
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/19445] 50 fold compile time increase between gcc-3,4 and gcc-4,0 on included code
2005-01-14 16:52 [Bug c++/19445] New: 50 fold compile time increase between gcc-3,4 and gcc-4,0 on included code phil at fsel dot com
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2005-01-17 11:06 ` phil at fsel dot com
@ 2005-07-25 4:42 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-07-25 4:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-25 04:41 -------
Fixed on the mainline.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19445
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread