From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4337 invoked by alias); 8 Feb 2005 00:29:30 -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 4280 invoked by uid 48); 8 Feb 2005 00:29:27 -0000 Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 13:54:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050208002927.4279.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20041127043006.18687.belyshev@depni.sinp.msu.ru> References: <20041127043006.18687.belyshev@depni.sinp.msu.ru> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.0 Regression] ~50% compile time regression X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-02/txt/msg00484.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-08 00:29 ------- Out of the time spent in ivopts: -- this patch saves some 25%: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-10/msg00136.html -- another 25% are caused by inefficient use of # of iterations analysis; I am thinking about solution -- yet another 25% are spent in scalar evolutions analysis; I am working on speeding this up -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18687