From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3141 invoked by alias); 1 Feb 2009 11:08:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 3102 invoked by uid 48); 1 Feb 2009 11:08:25 -0000 Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 11:08:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20090201110825.3101.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.2/4.3/4.4 Regression] ~50% compile time regression In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org" 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: 2009-02/txt/msg00030.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #41 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-01 11:08 ------- Ok, let's say then comparing -O[23s] compile-times is unfair as we never stated they are optimized for compile-time but they explicitly contain passes that may usually _not_ help. -O1 may be a different story, but I do not remember when we last tried to find a reasonable set of optimizations for it ;) (I guess we could do with early optimizations only, no IPA, maybe one memory CSE and cleanups after it, no tree loop opts, no repeating everything). Oh, and you are welcome to try to remove redundant passes. I tried for 4.4 with mixed success (our testsuite shows that we have many corner-cases that are only optimized if you run the correct passes in the right order). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18687