From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21230 invoked by alias); 20 Apr 2006 03:39:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 21212 invoked by alias); 20 Apr 2006 03:39:08 -0000 Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 03:39:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20060420033908.21211.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/26854] Inordinate compile times on large routines In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "lucier at math dot purdue dot edu" 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: 2006-04/txt/msg01616.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Comment #8 from lucier at math dot purdue dot edu 2006-04-20 03:39 ------- Subject: Re: Inordinate compile times on large routines On Apr 19, 2006, at 10:28 PM, law at redhat dot com wrote: > You'll likely get radically different pain points with mainline > as well. The RTL loop invariant code goes crazy memory-wise > for me, tree PRE and FRE also suck up large amounts of time. Mainline doesn't build with -m64 -mcpu=970; this was reported as http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26892 which is still marked as UNCONFIRMED; I just realized today that this could be listed as a 4.1 regression. In my limited understanding, I suspect it's a configure problem, as I mentioned in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-04/msg00265.html Brad -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26854