From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29814 invoked by alias); 11 Feb 2006 15:46:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 29789 invoked by uid 48); 11 Feb 2006 15:46:53 -0000 Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 15:46:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20060211154653.29788.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/8361] [4.1/4.2 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "steven at gcc dot gnu dot org" 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 X-SW-Source: 2006-02/txt/msg01110.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Comment #62 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-11 15:46 ------- Compile times for generate-3.4.ii All compilers bootstrapped, with checking disabled. Flags: -O2 GCC 4.0 (release branch today): real 0m22.795s 0m22.727s 0m22.760s user 0m22.481s 0m22.297s 0m22.357s sys 0m0.316s 0m0.412s 0m0.404s GCC 4.1 (release branch today): real 0m29.888s 0m28.450s 0m28.420s user 0m28.154s 0m27.906s 0m27.894s sys 0m0.496s 0m0.544s 0m0.524s GCC 4.2 (trunk today): real 0m33.715s 0m31.524s 0m31.483s user 0m31.466s 0m31.034s 0m31.022s sys 0m0.424s 0m0.492s 0m0.460s Flags: -O3 GCC 4.0 (release branch today): real 0m24.412s 0m25.000s 0m24.771s user 0m23.921s 0m24.430s 0m24.210s sys 0m0.368s 0m0.408s 0m0.420s GCC 4.1 (release branch today): real 0m33.260s 0m33.140s 0m33.188s user 0m32.602s 0m32.522s 0m32.554s sys 0m0.556s 0m0.544s 0m0.600s GCC 4.2 (trunk today): real 0m36.544s 0m36.614s 0m36.492s user 0m35.950s 0m35.942s 0m35.994s sys 0m0.544s 0m0.600s 0m0.464s Significant compile time sinks in GCC 4.1 that don't appear in GCC 4.0: tree PTA : 2.31 ( 7%) usr tree SSA incremental : 2.14 ( 6%) usr expand : 1.71 ( 5%) usr The same passes cost the most time in GCC 4.2. The expand cost has increades. The other two are not new, they just run very often or didn't have their own time vars before. The overall problem seems to be that we just run too many passes too often, nothing really stands out. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361