public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug c++/17278] New: 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
@ 2004-09-02 8:56 kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
2004-09-02 8:58 ` [Bug c++/17278] " kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
` (36 more replies)
0 siblings, 37 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: kgardas at objectsecurity dot com @ 2004-09-02 8:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
Hello,
attached typecode.ii preprocessed file shows 40% regression in compile-time
while compiled with 3.5.0 in comparison with 3.4.1 when -O1 optimization is
used. To be correct, 40% regression is shown on not-preprocessed file. When I
compile file preprocessed by 3.5.0 with 3.4.1, the regression is only about 30%
which seems like 3.5.0's libstdc++ library is either bigger or slower to
compiler with.
Cheers,
Karel
--
Summary: 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1
at -O1 optimization level
Product: gcc
Version: 3.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/17278] 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
2004-09-02 8:56 [Bug c++/17278] New: 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
@ 2004-09-02 8:58 ` kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
2004-09-02 9:00 ` kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
` (35 subsequent siblings)
36 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: kgardas at objectsecurity dot com @ 2004-09-02 8:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2004-09-02 08:58 -------
Created an attachment (id=7021)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7021&action=view)
gcc 3.5.0 preprocessed typecode.cc file
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/17278] 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
2004-09-02 8:56 [Bug c++/17278] New: 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
2004-09-02 8:58 ` [Bug c++/17278] " kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
@ 2004-09-02 9:00 ` kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
2004-09-02 11:05 ` [Bug c++/17278] [3.5 Regression] " giovannibajo at libero dot it
` (34 subsequent siblings)
36 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: kgardas at objectsecurity dot com @ 2004-09-02 9:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2004-09-02 09:00 -------
Here is an analysis done by Steven Bosscher:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-08/msg01602.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/17278] [3.5 Regression] 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
2004-09-02 8:56 [Bug c++/17278] New: 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
2004-09-02 8:58 ` [Bug c++/17278] " kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
2004-09-02 9:00 ` kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
@ 2004-09-02 11:05 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
2004-09-02 17:07 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (33 subsequent siblings)
36 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: giovannibajo at libero dot it @ 2004-09-02 11:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-09-02 11:05 -------
Confirmed. Looks like it's just a matter of tuning which optimizations are
implied by -O1.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |giovannibajo at libero dot
| |it
OtherBugsDependingO| |13776
nThis| |
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed| |1
Keywords| |compile-time-hog
Known to fail| |3.5.0
Known to work| |3.4.0
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2004-09-02 11:05:08
date| |
Summary|40% C++ compile-time |[3.5 Regression] 40% C++
|regression in comparison |compile-time regression in
|with 3.4.1 at -O1 |comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1
|optimization level |optimization level
Target Milestone|--- |3.5.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/17278] [3.5 Regression] 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
2004-09-02 8:56 [Bug c++/17278] New: 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2004-09-02 11:05 ` [Bug c++/17278] [3.5 Regression] " giovannibajo at libero dot it
@ 2004-09-02 17:07 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-03 23:37 ` [Bug c++/17278] [4.0 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (32 subsequent siblings)
36 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-09-02 17:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-09-02 17:07 -------
Hmm, I disagree with Steven's analysis, I think there are other problems here than just more
optimizations, if I have time I will look into it, the next few days.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/17278] [4.0 Regression] 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
2004-09-02 8:56 [Bug c++/17278] New: 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2004-09-02 17:07 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-03 23:37 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-25 12:55 ` [Bug c++/17278] [4.0 Regression] 24% " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (31 subsequent siblings)
36 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-03 23:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-03 23:37 -------
Well now most of the time is in cgraph_reset_static_var_maps which is PR 17707.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
BugsThisDependsOn| |17707
Known to fail|4.0 |4.0.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/17278] [4.0 Regression] 24% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
2004-09-02 8:56 [Bug c++/17278] New: 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-03 23:37 ` [Bug c++/17278] [4.0 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-25 12:55 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-25 13:06 ` kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
` (30 subsequent siblings)
36 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-25 12:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-25 12:55 -------
Rewording summary because now we are only 23%:
File 342-O0 400-O0 Delta% 342-O1 400-O1 Delta% 342-O2 400-O2 Delta%
typecode.cc 9.09 7.65 18.82 13.53 17.73 -23.69 32.95 23.29 41.48
>From <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-10/msg00952.html>.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|[4.0 Regression] 40% C++ |[4.0 Regression] 24% C++
|compile-time regression in |compile-time regression in
|comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1|comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1
|optimization level |optimization level
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/17278] [4.0 Regression] 24% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
2004-09-02 8:56 [Bug c++/17278] New: 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-25 12:55 ` [Bug c++/17278] [4.0 Regression] 24% " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-25 13:06 ` kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
2004-10-25 13:12 ` kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
` (29 subsequent siblings)
36 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: kgardas at objectsecurity dot com @ 2004-10-25 13:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2004-10-25 13:06 -------
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] 24% C++ compile-time regression
in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
Yes, but this only apply to typecode.cc. If you consider ir.cc, you will
need to increase from 40 to 44% and since subject does not talk about
typecode.cc, I would consider leaving it at 40% better option for now...
Cheers,
Karel
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/17278] [4.0 Regression] 24% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
2004-09-02 8:56 [Bug c++/17278] New: 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-25 13:06 ` kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
@ 2004-10-25 13:12 ` kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
2004-10-25 14:08 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (28 subsequent siblings)
36 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: kgardas at objectsecurity dot com @ 2004-10-25 13:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2004-10-25 13:12 -------
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] 24% C++ compile-time regression
in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
Please have a look into http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13776
for preprocessed ir.cc file for your experiments.
Cheers,
Karel
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/17278] [4.0 Regression] 24% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
2004-09-02 8:56 [Bug c++/17278] New: 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-25 13:12 ` kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
@ 2004-10-25 14:08 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-25 23:22 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (27 subsequent siblings)
36 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-25 14:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-25 14:07 -------
For ir.cc, does -fno-threadsafe-statics help if so this is a non bug (in that c++ front-end has changed
to output more functions so what does the middle-end/back-end expect but slower compile time for
those components).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/17278] [4.0 Regression] 24% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
2004-09-02 8:56 [Bug c++/17278] New: 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-25 14:08 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-25 23:22 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-26 6:45 ` kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
` (26 subsequent siblings)
36 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-25 23:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
Bug 17278 depends on bug 17707, which changed state.
Bug 17707 Summary: [4.0 Regression] O(N^2) in cgraph_reset_static_var_maps
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17707
What |Old Value |New Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/17278] [4.0 Regression] 24% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
2004-09-02 8:56 [Bug c++/17278] New: 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-25 23:22 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-26 6:45 ` kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
2004-11-27 0:40 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (25 subsequent siblings)
36 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: kgardas at objectsecurity dot com @ 2004-10-26 6:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2004-10-26 06:45 -------
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] 24% C++ compile-time regression
in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
Hi,
I have tested -fno-threadsafe-statics now and it does not affect so much,
IMHO:
$ c++ -I../include -time -O0 -Wall -DPIC -fPIC -c ir.cc -o ir.pic.o
# cc1plus 68.57 2.26
# as 5.92 0.27
$ c++ -I../include -fno-threadsafe-statics -time -O0 -Wall -DPIC -fPIC -c ir.cc -o ir.pic.o
# cc1plus 67.94 2.04
# as 5.86 0.26
Cheers,
Karel
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/17278] [4.0 Regression] 24% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
2004-09-02 8:56 [Bug c++/17278] New: 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-26 6:45 ` kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
@ 2004-11-27 0:40 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-11-27 3:35 ` belyshev at lubercy dot com
` (24 subsequent siblings)
36 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-11-27 0:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-27 00:39 -------
Anybody want to do new timings for typecode.ii at -O1 because I think that testcase is now fixed?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/17278] [4.0 Regression] 24% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
2004-09-02 8:56 [Bug c++/17278] New: 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2004-11-27 0:40 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-11-27 3:35 ` belyshev at lubercy dot com
2004-12-04 17:54 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (23 subsequent siblings)
36 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: belyshev at lubercy dot com @ 2004-11-27 3:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From belyshev at lubercy dot com 2004-11-27 03:35 -------
3.4.4 4.0.0 delta
---------------------------------
-O0 8.2 7.1 -13%
-O1 11.0 16.5 50%
-O2 23.3 21.8 -6%
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/17278] [4.0 Regression] 24% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
2004-09-02 8:56 [Bug c++/17278] New: 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2004-11-27 3:35 ` belyshev at lubercy dot com
@ 2004-12-04 17:54 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-23 11:28 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (22 subsequent siblings)
36 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-12-04 17:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-04 17:54 -------
tree remove redundant PHIs: 0.34 ( 2%) usr 0.02 ( 0%) sys 0.34 ( 1%) wall
tree SSA rewrite : 0.42 ( 3%) usr 0.06 ( 1%) sys 0.62 ( 3%) wall
tree SSA other : 0.88 ( 6%) usr 0.61 ( 9%) sys 1.39 ( 6%) wall
tree operand scan : 0.45 ( 3%) usr 0.64 (10%) sys 1.51 ( 6%) wall
dominator optimization: 0.86 ( 6%) usr 0.05 ( 1%) sys 0.83 ( 3%) wall
tree alias analysis : 0.19 ( 1%) usr 0.01 ( 0%) sys 0.25 ( 1%) wall
tree PHI insertion : 0.23 ( 2%) usr 0.02 ( 0%) sys 0.24 ( 1%) wall
expand : 0.72 ( 5%) usr 0.08 ( 1%) sys 0.91 ( 4%) wall
I wounder how expand is this slow, it might be just again counting more than just expand here (again).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/17278] [4.0 Regression] 24% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
2004-09-02 8:56 [Bug c++/17278] New: 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2004-12-04 17:54 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-12-23 11:28 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-23 11:31 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (21 subsequent siblings)
36 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-12-23 11:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-23 11:28 -------
Karel, your latest comparison is almost a month old (it was
here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-11/msg01157.html), and
we've fixed a few compile time bottlenecks since then. Can
you spare some cycles and send an updated comparison? It's
probably still ir.cc where we have regressions, but perhaps
not as bad as before *fingers crossed* ;-)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/17278] [4.0 Regression] 24% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
2004-09-02 8:56 [Bug c++/17278] New: 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2004-12-23 11:28 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-12-23 11:31 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-28 21:00 ` kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
` (20 subsequent siblings)
36 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-12-23 11:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-23 11:30 -------
It's interesting that -O1 is consistently slower than previous
releases. Perhaps we should turn off some of the more costly
tree passes at -O1, such as iterating in DOM, and the expensive
loop optimizations. Any thoughts on this?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/17278] [4.0 Regression] 24% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
2004-09-02 8:56 [Bug c++/17278] New: 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2004-12-23 11:31 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-12-28 21:00 ` kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
2004-12-28 22:33 ` [Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0 Regression] 8% " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (19 subsequent siblings)
36 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: kgardas at objectsecurity dot com @ 2004-12-28 21:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2004-12-28 21:00 -------
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] 24% C++ compile-time regression
in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
New comparison is here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-12/msg01157.html
Good work! :-)
Cheers,
Karel
--
Karel Gardas kgardas@objectsecurity.com
ObjectSecurity Ltd. http://www.objectsecurity.com
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
2004-09-02 8:56 [Bug c++/17278] New: 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2004-12-28 21:00 ` kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
@ 2004-12-28 22:33 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-28 22:39 ` kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
` (18 subsequent siblings)
36 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-12-28 22:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-28 22:33 -------
Now only 8%.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component|c++ |middle-end
Summary|[4.0 Regression] 24% C++ |[4.0 Regression] 8% C++
|compile-time regression in |compile-time regression in
|comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1|comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1
|optimization level |optimization level
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
2004-09-02 8:56 [Bug c++/17278] New: 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
` (17 preceding siblings ...)
2004-12-28 22:33 ` [Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0 Regression] 8% " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-12-28 22:39 ` kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
2004-12-28 22:40 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (17 subsequent siblings)
36 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: kgardas at objectsecurity dot com @ 2004-12-28 22:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2004-12-28 22:39 -------
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time
regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Now only 8%.
True for typecode.cc, but not for ir.cc where there is ~28% regression.
Cheers,
Karel
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
2004-09-02 8:56 [Bug c++/17278] New: 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
` (18 preceding siblings ...)
2004-12-28 22:39 ` kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
@ 2004-12-28 22:40 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-28 22:42 ` kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
` (16 subsequent siblings)
36 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-12-28 22:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-28 22:40 -------
(In reply to comment #18)
> Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time
> regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
>
>
> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> > Now only 8%.
>
> True for typecode.cc, but not for ir.cc where there is ~28% regression.
PR 13776 is keeping track of that regression.
This one is for typecode.cc.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
2004-09-02 8:56 [Bug c++/17278] New: 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
` (19 preceding siblings ...)
2004-12-28 22:40 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-12-28 22:42 ` kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
2005-01-20 22:58 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
36 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: kgardas at objectsecurity dot com @ 2004-12-28 22:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2004-12-28 22:42 -------
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time
regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Dec 2004, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> >
> > > Now only 8%.
> >
> > True for typecode.cc, but not for ir.cc where there is ~28% regression.
>
> PR 13776 is keeping track of that regression.
> This one is for typecode.cc.
Err, you are right! Sorry for that.
Karel
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
2004-09-02 8:56 [Bug c++/17278] New: 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
` (20 preceding siblings ...)
2004-12-28 22:42 ` kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
@ 2005-01-20 22:58 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-21 0:25 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
36 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-20 22:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-20 22:58 -------
Does this 8% regression apply to preprocessed source, or only to unpreprocessed
source? If the latter, then this PR should be closed as WONTFIX; the runtime
library has gotten bigger, and that makes things slower, but nothing is going to
be done about that.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
2004-09-02 8:56 [Bug c++/17278] New: 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
` (21 preceding siblings ...)
2005-01-20 22:58 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-21 0:25 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-21 10:57 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
36 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-21 0:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-21 00:24 -------
Mark, typecode.ii ;-)
So it is preprocessed. That doesn't mean it's smaller though, the
preprocessed larger library is still a larger library.
Anyway, the problem here is more that compared to gcc 3.x we do a lot
more work at -O1. Basically all tree-ssa passes run at -O1, we probably
should look into disabling a few, and some RTL passes too.
I've suggested a few things before. Disabling RTL CSE1, gcse, and jump
threading for -O1, and don't allow tree-ssa DOM to iterating at -O1 would
make a big difference already, I think. But apparently nobody cares
enough to actually try it.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |mark at codesourcery dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
2004-09-02 8:56 [Bug c++/17278] New: 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
` (22 preceding siblings ...)
2005-01-21 0:25 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-21 10:57 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-27 15:55 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
36 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-21 10:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-21 10:57 -------
Created an attachment (id=8029)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8029&action=view)
Disable some expensive passes at -O1
I'm running a SPECint comparison between GCC-hammer-branch and mainline
with the attached patch applied.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |steven at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
2004-09-02 8:56 [Bug c++/17278] New: 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
` (23 preceding siblings ...)
2005-01-21 10:57 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-27 15:55 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-27 16:36 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
36 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-27 15:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-27 15:55 -------
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-01/msg02033.html
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
2004-09-02 8:56 [Bug c++/17278] New: 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
` (24 preceding siblings ...)
2005-01-27 15:55 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-27 16:36 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-27 16:41 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
36 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-27 16:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-27 16:33 -------
Subject: Bug 17278
CVSROOT: /cvs/gcc
Module name: gcc
Changes by: steven@gcc.gnu.org 2005-01-27 16:32:16
Modified files:
gcc : ChangeLog opts.c tree-ssa-dom.c
Log message:
PR middle-end/17278
* opts.c (decode_options): Move flag_thread_jumps from -O1 and
higher to -O2 and higher. Likewise for tree PRE.
* tree-ssa-dom.c (tree_ssa_dominator_optimize): Only iterate at -O2
and better.
Patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.7306&r2=2.7307
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/opts.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.90&r2=1.91
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/tree-ssa-dom.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.88&r2=2.89
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
2004-09-02 8:56 [Bug c++/17278] New: 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
` (25 preceding siblings ...)
2005-01-27 16:36 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-27 16:41 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-30 21:16 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
36 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-27 16:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-27 16:40 -------
Partially fixed at least.
Karel, new timings? (This one will probably still be a bit slower, but
hopefully we've gained a bit again...)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
2004-09-02 8:56 [Bug c++/17278] New: 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
` (26 preceding siblings ...)
2005-01-27 16:41 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-30 21:16 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-31 9:01 ` kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
` (8 subsequent siblings)
36 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-30 21:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
2004-09-02 8:56 [Bug c++/17278] New: 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
` (27 preceding siblings ...)
2005-01-30 21:16 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-31 9:01 ` kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
2005-02-01 0:21 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
36 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: kgardas at objectsecurity dot com @ 2005-01-31 9:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2005-01-31 09:00 -------
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time
regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
Hello,
new timings are here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-01/msg01714.html
Actually typecode.cc went to ~9% regression for -O1, please read this
report for more information why.
Cheers,
Karel
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
2004-09-02 8:56 [Bug c++/17278] New: 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
` (28 preceding siblings ...)
2005-01-31 9:01 ` kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
@ 2005-02-01 0:21 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-01 0:22 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
36 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-02-01 0:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|WAITING |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2004-09-02 11:05:08 |2005-02-01 00:21:16
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
2004-09-02 8:56 [Bug c++/17278] New: 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
` (29 preceding siblings ...)
2005-02-01 0:21 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-02-01 0:22 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-03-01 15:10 ` [Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0/4.1 " kazu at cs dot umass dot edu
` (5 subsequent siblings)
36 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-02-01 0:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-01 00:22 -------
I have no further ideas for speedups for this bug...
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|steven at gcc dot gnu dot |unassigned at gcc dot gnu
|org |dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0/4.1 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
2004-09-02 8:56 [Bug c++/17278] New: 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
` (30 preceding siblings ...)
2005-02-01 0:22 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-03-01 15:10 ` kazu at cs dot umass dot edu
2005-03-02 20:06 ` kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
` (4 subsequent siblings)
36 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: kazu at cs dot umass dot edu @ 2005-03-01 15:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu 2005-03-01 15:08 -------
Karel, could you retest the testcase with the gcc-4.0 branch?
Several speed-up patches went in after your last benchmark.
Thanks,
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0/4.1 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
2004-09-02 8:56 [Bug c++/17278] New: 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
` (31 preceding siblings ...)
2005-03-01 15:10 ` [Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0/4.1 " kazu at cs dot umass dot edu
@ 2005-03-02 20:06 ` kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
2005-03-02 21:21 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
` (3 subsequent siblings)
36 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: kgardas at objectsecurity dot com @ 2005-03-02 20:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2005-03-02 20:05 -------
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time
regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
New results for 4.0.0 20050301 are posted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-03/msg00132.html
Cheers,
Karel
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0/4.1 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
2004-09-02 8:56 [Bug c++/17278] New: 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
` (32 preceding siblings ...)
2005-03-02 20:06 ` kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
@ 2005-03-02 21:21 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
2005-03-02 21:25 ` kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
` (2 subsequent siblings)
36 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: giovannibajo at libero dot it @ 2005-03-02 21:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-03-02 21:21 -------
At this point, I think we could safely close this and related bugs. Karel
could continue to periodically test GCC and report new regressions in new
bugs. I don't think keeping these open bring us any benefit right now. Karel,
do you agree?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0/4.1 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
2004-09-02 8:56 [Bug c++/17278] New: 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
` (33 preceding siblings ...)
2005-03-02 21:21 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
@ 2005-03-02 21:25 ` kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
2005-03-02 21:28 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
2005-03-02 21:28 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
36 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: kgardas at objectsecurity dot com @ 2005-03-02 21:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2005-03-02 21:25 -------
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time
regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
I agree with Giovanni that both #17278 and #13776 are fixed from MICO
compile-time regressions point of view. If you would like to close them,
I'm also for it, just please be careful with #13776 which seems to
"accumulate" more staff than only MICO-related regressions.
Thanks!
Karel
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0/4.1 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
2004-09-02 8:56 [Bug c++/17278] New: 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
` (35 preceding siblings ...)
2005-03-02 21:28 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
@ 2005-03-02 21:28 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
36 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-03-02 21:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-02 21:27 -------
Fixed.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0/4.1 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
2004-09-02 8:56 [Bug c++/17278] New: 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
` (34 preceding siblings ...)
2005-03-02 21:25 ` kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
@ 2005-03-02 21:28 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
2005-03-02 21:28 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
36 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: giovannibajo at libero dot it @ 2005-03-02 21:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-03-02 21:28 -------
OK let's close this as fixed then. Many thanks to the hard work of the whole
GCC team!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-03-02 21:28 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-09-02 8:56 [Bug c++/17278] New: 40% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
2004-09-02 8:58 ` [Bug c++/17278] " kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
2004-09-02 9:00 ` kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
2004-09-02 11:05 ` [Bug c++/17278] [3.5 Regression] " giovannibajo at libero dot it
2004-09-02 17:07 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-03 23:37 ` [Bug c++/17278] [4.0 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-25 12:55 ` [Bug c++/17278] [4.0 Regression] 24% " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-25 13:06 ` kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
2004-10-25 13:12 ` kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
2004-10-25 14:08 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-25 23:22 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-26 6:45 ` kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
2004-11-27 0:40 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-11-27 3:35 ` belyshev at lubercy dot com
2004-12-04 17:54 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-23 11:28 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-23 11:31 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-28 21:00 ` kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
2004-12-28 22:33 ` [Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0 Regression] 8% " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-28 22:39 ` kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
2004-12-28 22:40 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-28 22:42 ` kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
2005-01-20 22:58 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-21 0:25 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-21 10:57 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-27 15:55 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-27 16:36 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-27 16:41 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-30 21:16 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-31 9:01 ` kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
2005-02-01 0:21 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-01 0:22 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-03-01 15:10 ` [Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0/4.1 " kazu at cs dot umass dot edu
2005-03-02 20:06 ` kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
2005-03-02 21:21 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
2005-03-02 21:25 ` kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
2005-03-02 21:28 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
2005-03-02 21:28 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).