From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17857 invoked by alias); 18 Jan 2008 02:11:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 17376 invoked by alias); 18 Jan 2008 02:10:34 -0000 Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 02:18:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20080118021034.17375.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: "zadeck at naturalbridge dot com" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-01/txt/msg01876.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #57 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2008-01-18 02:10 ------- Subject: Re: Inordinate compile times on large routines lucier at math dot purdue dot edu wrote: > ------- Comment #56 from lucier at math dot purdue dot edu 2008-01-18 01:38 ------- > gcc is now 5-6 times faster than it was nearly two years ago when this was > first reported; many changes have made significant improvements in cpu time. > > But Steven Bosscher's patch from December still improved things more on this > test case. > > In particular, on 12/20/2007, without the patch, CPU time from > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14799 > > was > > TOTAL : 300.21 19.16 319.52 > 778432 kB > > After Steven Bosscher's patch > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34400#c28 > > it was > > TOTAL : 210.97 15.80 226.88 > 778432 kB > > and today it's > > TOTAL : 281.08 18.03 299.41 > 776514 kB > > Would it still be a good idea to apply Steven's patch? > > > the plan is to apply all of the patches, they each deal with a different problem and the improvement should be additive. kenny -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26854