* [Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.0/4.1 Regression] ~50% compile time regression
[not found] <bug-18687-7958@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2005-10-31 1:59 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-02-24 0:31 ` [Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.0/4.1/4.2 " mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (24 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-10-31 1:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #27 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 01:59 -------
I'm going to mark as P4. I'd like to see it fixed, but I'm not sure there's
much we can do for 4.1.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18687
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] ~50% compile time regression
[not found] <bug-18687-7958@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2005-10-31 1:59 ` [Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.0/4.1 Regression] ~50% compile time regression mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-02-24 0:31 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-05-25 2:32 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (23 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-02-24 0:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #28 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-24 00:25 -------
This issue will not be resolved in GCC 4.1.0; retargeted at GCC 4.1.1.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.0.3 |4.1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18687
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] ~50% compile time regression
[not found] <bug-18687-7958@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2005-10-31 1:59 ` [Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.0/4.1 Regression] ~50% compile time regression mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-02-24 0:31 ` [Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.0/4.1/4.2 " mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-05-25 2:32 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-07-05 9:15 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (22 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-05-25 2:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #29 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-25 02:32 -------
Will not be fixed in 4.1.1; adjust target milestone to 4.1.2.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.1.1 |4.1.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18687
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] ~50% compile time regression
[not found] <bug-18687-7958@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2006-05-25 2:32 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-07-05 9:15 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-09-03 11:05 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (21 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-07-05 9:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #30 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 09:14 -------
Can you do timings on these again on the mainline since it looks like Richard
G.'s memory patches also improved compile time for C at least on the CSiBE
benchmark.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18687
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] ~50% compile time regression
[not found] <bug-18687-7958@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2006-07-05 9:15 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-09-03 11:05 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-09-03 11:37 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (20 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-09-03 11:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #31 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-03 11:05 -------
"real" times for hashes100.c (x86_64-linux, Intel Xeon 3.2 GHz, 1GB RAM):
3.4.6 4.0.4 4.1.2 4.2-svn20060724
-O0 0m1.618s 0m1.762s 0m1.661s 0m1.645s
-O1 0m2.743s 0m4.646s 0m4.984s 0m4.936s
-O2 0m4.686s 0m6.814s 0m7.140s 0m7.603s
"real" times for infcodes100.c:
3.4.6 4.0.4 4.1.2 4.2-svn20060724
-O0 0m3.040s 0m3.643s 0m3.555s 0m3.575s
-O1 0m4.989s 0m7.694s 0m8.809s 0m8.943s
-O2 0m8.375s 0m10.622s 0m12.136s 0m13.285s
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18687
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] ~50% compile time regression
[not found] <bug-18687-7958@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2006-09-03 11:05 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-09-03 11:37 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-09-03 11:41 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (19 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-09-03 11:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #32 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-03 11:37 -------
Just to be sure that between 7/24 and today we didn't speed up significantly:
"real" times for hashes100.c (x86_64-linux, Intel Xeon 3.2 GHz, 1GB RAM):
3.4.6 4.2-svn20060903 delta
-O0 0m1.618s 0m1.634s +1%
-O1 0m2.743s 0m5.175s +88%
-O2 0m4.686s 0m7.719s +65%
"real" times for infcodes100.c:
3.4 4.2-svn20060903 delta
-O0 0m3.040s 0m3.526s +16%
-O1 0m4.989s 0m8.871s +77%
-O2 0m8.375s 0m13.334s +59%
Given these numbers, I would stick with gcc3 if I were a kernel developer.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18687
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] ~50% compile time regression
[not found] <bug-18687-7958@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2006-09-03 11:37 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-09-03 11:41 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-09-03 13:22 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (18 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-09-03 11:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #33 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-03 11:41 -------
FWIW, the oprofile for both test cases is basically flat, nothing stands out.
We just do _so_ much more work (many more passes without removing anything) and
that hurts apparently (not surprising of course).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18687
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] ~50% compile time regression
[not found] <bug-18687-7958@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2006-09-03 11:41 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-09-03 13:22 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-09-03 17:28 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (17 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-09-03 13:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #34 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-03 13:22 -------
FYI, the profile (-O2) looks like
Flat profile:
Each sample counts as 0.01 seconds.
% cumulative self self total
time seconds seconds calls s/call s/call name
2.04 0.62 0.62 5210670 0.00 0.00 htab_find_slot_with_hash
2.01 1.23 0.61 135824 0.00 0.00 find_reloads
1.78 1.77 0.54 1181450 0.00 0.00 constrain_operands
1.71 2.29 0.52 1667653 0.00 0.00 walk_tree
1.64 2.79 0.50 113076 0.00 0.00 record_reg_classes
1.18 3.15 0.36 1374013 0.00 0.00 for_each_rtx_1
1.15 3.50 0.35 2188275 0.00 0.00 iterative_hash_expr
1.02 3.81 0.31 13803214 0.00 0.00 bitmap_bit_p
0.99 4.11 0.30 146294 0.00 0.00
reload_cse_simplify_operands
0.92 4.39 0.28 8238693 0.00 0.00 bitmap_set_bit
0.89 4.66 0.27 13524760 0.00 0.00 is_gimple_min_invariant
0.85 4.92 0.26 1944894 0.00 0.00 extract_insn
0.76 5.15 0.23 3242786 0.00 0.00 note_stores
0.76 5.38 0.23 1848575 0.00 0.00 mark_set_1
0.76 5.61 0.23 1073359 0.00 0.00 fold_binary
0.69 5.82 0.21 3530376 0.00 0.00 ix86_decompose_address
0.66 6.02 0.20 2801807 0.00 0.00 is_gimple_reg
0.66 6.22 0.20 101 0.00 0.02 reload
0.62 6.41 0.19 6596295 0.00 0.00 find_reg_note
0.62 6.60 0.19 3748843 0.00 0.00 ggc_alloc_stat
0.62 6.79 0.19 1543768 0.00 0.00 force_fit_type
0.59 6.97 0.18 5160059 0.00 0.00 pool_alloc
0.59 7.15 0.18 937999 0.00 0.00 make_node_stat
0.59 7.33 0.18 1915 0.00 0.00 cleanup_cfg
0.56 7.50 0.17 2132681 0.00 0.00 mark_all_vars_used_1
0.56 7.67 0.17 1015399 0.00 0.00 get_expr_operands
0.56 7.84 0.17 263419 0.00 0.00 cse_insn
0.53 8.00 0.16 2162651 0.00 0.00 cselib_lookup
0.53 8.16 0.16 1176845 0.00 0.00 mark_used_regs
0.53 8.32 0.16 101 0.00 0.01 reload_as_needed
0.49 8.47 0.15 1748131 0.00 0.00 operand_equal_p
0.49 8.62 0.15 1160005 0.00 0.00 propagate_one_insn
0.49 8.77 0.15 1086424 0.00 0.00 et_splay
0.49 8.92 0.15 1030222 0.00 0.00 rtx_cost
0.49 9.07 0.15 523805 0.00 0.00 count_reg_usage
0.46 9.21 0.14 3222872 0.00 0.00 memory_operand
0.46 9.35 0.14 1651283 0.00 0.00 htab_find_with_hash
0.46 9.49 0.14 693604 0.00 0.00 rewrite_update_stmt
0.46 9.63 0.14 457856 0.00 0.00 mul_double
we're hashing SCEV data a lot:
0.01 0.07 285600/2683522 set_instantiated_value [395]
0.01 0.09 398929/2683522 build_int_cst_wide [214]
0.02 0.20 864500/2683522 find_var_scev_info [184]
[68] 2.3 0.06 0.63 2683522 htab_find_slot [68]
0.34 0.16 2683522/11019933 htab_find_slot_with_hash
<cycle 26> [53]
0.03 0.00 1150100/1603800 hash_scev_info [589]
0.06 0.03 125694/1181450 reload_cse_simplify_operands
[94]
0.09 0.05 201473/1181450 find_matches [200]
0.32 0.16 698486/1181450 extract_constrain_insn_cached
[67]
[61] 2.7 0.54 0.28 1181450+14400 constrain_operands [61]
0.01 0.15 806498/873917 strict_memory_address_p [236]
0.05 0.00 272106/402044 operands_match_p [415]
0.05 0.04 100911/1588625 create_ssa_var_map [329]
0.07 0.06 144529/1588625 walk_tree_without_duplicates
[268]
0.14 0.13 292781/1588625 count_uses_and_derefs [149]
0.21 0.20 450984/1588625 remove_unused_locals [111]
[44] 3.9 0.52 0.68 1667653+3246362 walk_tree <cycle 20> [44]
0.06 0.18 337362/337362 find_used_portions [189]
0.08 0.12 1659486/1659486 pointer_set_insert [209]
0.00 0.06 97327/97327 scan_for_refs [487]
0.05 0.00 1267779/1267779 count_ptr_derefs [525]
0.01 0.56 143418/143418 regclass [71]
[80] 1.9 0.01 0.56 143418 scan_one_insn [80]
0.50 0.04 113076/113076 record_reg_classes [85]
0.01 0.01 100486/1944894 extract_insn [121]
0.00 0.07 209960/1775362 x86_extended_reg_mentioned_p
[364]
0.02 0.26 747868/1775362 approx_reg_cost [165]
[70] 2.2 0.04 0.62 1775362 for_each_rtx [70]
0.36 0.20 1374013/1374013 for_each_rtx_1 [82]
0.01 0.03 195736/659311 check_dependence [310]
0.03 0.01 202137/2188275 vn_add_with_vuses [301]
0.06 0.02 385100/2188275 phi_translate [110]
0.07 0.03 453965/2188275 vn_lookup_with_vuses [197]
0.11 0.04 687546/2188275 initialize_hash_element [235]
[96] 1.6 0.35 0.14 2188275+2621356 iterative_hash_expr [96]
0.11 0.00 1329048/1332689 iterative_hash [318]
0.03 0.00 1131815/1907772 commutative_tree_code [523]
0.01 0.00 508000/13803214 build_tree_conflict_graph
[618]
0.01 0.00 541400/13803214 propagate_one_insn [31]
0.02 0.00 793747/13803214 rewrite_update_stmt [215]
0.02 0.00 997246/13803214 mark_block_for_update [547]
0.03 0.00 1120737/13803214 set_contains_value [338]
0.03 0.00 1314587/13803214 prepare_block_for_update
[138]
0.03 0.00 1484822/13803214 mark_set_1 [87]
0.06 0.00 2575352/13803214 mark_used_reg [195]
[146] 1.0 0.31 0.00 13803214 bitmap_bit_p [146]
0.01 0.88 101/101 rest_of_handle_postreload [58]
[57] 2.9 0.01 0.88 101 reload_cse_regs [57]
0.02 0.84 202/202 reload_cse_regs_1 [59]
0.02 0.84 202/202 reload_cse_regs [57]
[59] 2.8 0.02 0.84 202 reload_cse_regs_1 [59]
0.30 0.20 146294/146294 reload_cse_simplify_operands
[94]
0.01 0.00 240636/8238693 set_def_block [398]
0.01 0.00 318100/8238693 compute_dominance_frontiers
[480]
0.02 0.00 451869/8238693 update_alias_info [118]
0.03 0.00 837338/8238693 insert_into_set [176]
0.03 0.00 1004991/8238693 mark_set_1 [87]
0.04 0.00 1218828/8238693 mark_used_reg [195]
[166] 0.9 0.28 0.00 8238693 bitmap_set_bit [166]
0.01 0.00 623522/13524760 value_insert_into_set [280]
0.03 0.00 1279640/13524760 set_contains_value [338]
0.03 0.00 1478781/13524760 insert_into_set [176]
0.10 0.00 4785141/13524760 get_value_handle [203]
[170] 0.9 0.27 0.00 13524760 is_gimple_min_invariant [170]
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18687
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] ~50% compile time regression
[not found] <bug-18687-7958@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2006-09-03 13:22 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-09-03 17:28 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-02-14 9:04 ` [Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 " mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (16 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-09-03 17:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #35 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-03 17:28 -------
Even if we did not hash SCEV data a lot, it would not buy you >50%.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18687
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] ~50% compile time regression
[not found] <bug-18687-7958@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2006-09-03 17:28 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-02-14 9:04 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-10-09 18:57 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-02-14 9:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.1.2 |4.1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18687
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] ~50% compile time regression
[not found] <bug-18687-7958@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2007-02-14 9:04 ` [Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 " mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-10-09 18:57 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-11-05 22:23 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-10-09 18:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #36 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-09 18:57 -------
Startup times was optimized a bit in 4.3.
hashes.c, 100 compilations:
GCC-3.3 GCC-3.4 mainline mainline&profiledbootstrap
-O0 3.2s 3.8s 3.6s 3.3s
-O1 5s 5.6s 8.1s 7.4s
-O2 7.7s 7.6s 12.4s 11.1s
So at least for -O0 we are back to original speed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18687
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] ~50% compile time regression
[not found] <bug-18687-7958@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2007-10-09 18:57 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-11-05 22:23 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-07-04 16:47 ` [Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.2/4.3/4.4 " jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-11-05 22:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #37 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-05 22:23 -------
If linux kernel hacker complaints were taken seriously, this bug would be P1
;-)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18687
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.2/4.3/4.4 Regression] ~50% compile time regression
[not found] <bug-18687-7958@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2007-11-05 22:23 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-07-04 16:47 ` jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-01-31 21:36 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-07-04 16:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #38 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-04 16:46 -------
Closing 4.1 branch.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|[4.1/4.2/4.3/4.4 Regression]|[4.2/4.3/4.4 Regression]
|~50% compile time regression|~50% compile time regression
Target Milestone|4.1.3 |4.2.5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18687
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.2/4.3/4.4 Regression] ~50% compile time regression
[not found] <bug-18687-7958@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2008-07-04 16:47 ` [Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.2/4.3/4.4 " jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-01-31 21:36 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-01-31 22:22 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-01-31 21:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #39 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-31 21:36 -------
4.0.4 4.1.2 4.2.4 4.3.3 4.4.0
-O0: 1.64 1.58 1.91 1.86 2.20
-O1: 4.12 4.60 10.14 5.31 5.43
-O2: 6.10 6.60 13.34 8.40 8.57
-Os: 4.82 5.38 10.92 6.54 6.77
-O3: 6.10 9.80 18.12 12.81 13.42
my 4.2.4 build is with checking enabled. I do not have a
x86_64 build from the 3.3 or 3.4 series available.
At -O0 with 4.3 the DF framework likely adds compile-time, with 4.4 it is
the (partial) tuple transition and maybe SSA at -O0, maybe IRA. Comparing
optimized build-times is likely unfair as we add optimization capabilities.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18687
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.2/4.3/4.4 Regression] ~50% compile time regression
[not found] <bug-18687-7958@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2009-01-31 21:36 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-01-31 22:22 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-02-01 11:08 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-01-31 22:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #40 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-31 22:22 -------
Comparing optimized build times *is* very, very fair as we add optimization
capabilities that help nothing for 99% of the code (cselim, bswap optimization,
cestore, etc.), and with a passes pipeline that unconditionally executes many
passes repeatedly for good SPEC scores.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18687
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.2/4.3/4.4 Regression] ~50% compile time regression
[not found] <bug-18687-7958@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2009-01-31 22:22 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-02-01 11:08 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-03-31 16:42 ` [Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.3/4.4/4.5 " jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-02-01 11:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] ~50% compile time regression
[not found] <bug-18687-7958@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2009-02-01 11:08 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-03-31 16:42 ` jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-08-04 12:28 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-03-31 16:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #42 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-31 16:42 -------
Closing 4.2 branch.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|[4.2/4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression]|[4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression]
|~50% compile time regression|~50% compile time regression
Target Milestone|4.2.5 |4.3.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18687
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] ~50% compile time regression
[not found] <bug-18687-7958@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2009-03-31 16:42 ` [Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.3/4.4/4.5 " jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-08-04 12:28 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-12-28 19:51 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-08-04 12:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #43 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-04 12:26 -------
GCC 4.3.4 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.3.4 |4.3.5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18687
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] ~50% compile time regression
[not found] <bug-18687-7958@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (17 preceding siblings ...)
2009-08-04 12:28 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-12-28 19:51 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-12-28 20:28 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-12-28 19:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #44 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-28 19:51 -------
hashes100.c on x86_64:
3.4.6 4.2.4 4.3.3 4.4.2 4.5.0
-O0 1.37 1.4 1.59 1.91 1.84
-O1 2.07 4 4.44 4.68 4.89
-O2 3.57 5.96 7.08 7.48 7.6
-O3 3.78 8.73 10.85 11.55 11.8
3.4.6 4.2.4 4.3.3 4.4.2 4.5.0
-O0 100% 102% 116% 139% 134%
-O1 100% 193% 214% 226% 236%
-O2 100% 167% 198% 210% 213%
-O3 100% 231% 287% 306% 312%
infcodes100.c on x86_64:
3.4.6 4.2.4 4.3.3 4.4.2 4.5.0
-O0 2.74 3.2 3.86 4.39 4.79
-O1 3.85 7.81 7.69 8.39 8.16
-O2 6.35 11.81 12.8 13.18 14.71
-O3 6.72 11.9 13.91 14.11 15.95
3.4.6 4.2.4 4.3.3 4.4.2 4.5.0
-O0 100% 117% 141% 160% 175%
-O1 100% 203% 200% 218% 212%
-O2 100% 186% 202% 208% 232%
-O3 100% 177% 207% 210% 237%
These are all best-of-three-runs timings. All compilers built with default
release settings (--enable-checking=release, except 3.4.6, which was built with
checking disabled by default).
Even relative to gcc 4.3, gcc 4.5 is ~15% slower again. Bravo! :-(
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last reconfirmed|2005-02-10 15:55:22 |2009-12-28 19:51:37
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18687
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] ~50% compile time regression
[not found] <bug-18687-7958@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (18 preceding siblings ...)
2009-12-28 19:51 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-12-28 20:28 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-12-28 20:35 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-12-28 20:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #45 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-28 20:28 -------
Profile for cc1 for SVN r155486 looks like this (all items with >0.5% time):
Flat profile:
Each sample counts as 0.01 seconds.
% cumulative self self total
time seconds seconds calls s/call s/call name
3.79 0.29 0.29 3718720 0.00 0.00 operand_equal_p
2.87 0.51 0.22 6543125 0.00 0.00 htab_find_slot_with_hash
2.15 0.68 0.17 18227570 0.00 0.00 bitmap_set_bit
2.09 0.84 0.16 1614 0.00 0.00 df_note_compute
1.83 0.98 0.14 _fini
1.63 1.10 0.13 3266034 0.00 0.00 mem_attrs_htab_eq
1.44 1.21 0.11 23919785 0.00 0.00 bitmap_bit_p
1.44 1.32 0.11 118624 0.00 0.00 free_ira_costs
1.31 1.42 0.10 4998409 0.00 0.00 bitmap_ior_into
1.31 1.52 0.10 7015 0.00 0.00 df_worklist_dataflow
1.24 1.62 0.10 1319725 0.00 0.00 bitmap_copy
0.91 1.69 0.07 2951661 0.00 0.00 note_stores
0.91 1.76 0.07 1709658 0.00 0.00 bitmap_ior_and_compl
0.91 1.83 0.07 1639154 0.00 0.00 et_splay
0.78 1.89 0.06 1552007 0.00 0.00 rtx_alloc_stat
0.78 1.95 0.06 6404265 0.00 0.00 bitmap_clear
0.78 2.01 0.06 4110147 0.00 0.00 bitmap_elt_insert_after
0.78 2.07 0.06 598552 0.00 0.00 constrain_operands
0.78 2.13 0.06 71808 0.00 0.00 df_lr_bb_local_compute
0.78 2.19 0.06 909 0.00 0.00 substitute_and_fold
0.65 2.24 0.05 5297243 0.00 0.00 mark_all_vars_used_1
0.65 2.29 0.05 1652326 0.00 0.00 htab_find_with_hash
0.65 2.34 0.05 1008 0.00 0.00 init_alias_analysis
0.52 2.38 0.04 7167584 0.00 0.00 bitmap_elt_clear_from
0.52 2.42 0.04 4744012 0.00 0.00 walk_tree_1
0.52 2.46 0.04 4472070 0.00 0.00 is_gimple_reg
0.52 2.50 0.04 1727617 0.00 0.00 gsi_start_phis
0.52 2.54 0.04 1054932 0.00 0.00 for_each_rtx_1
0.52 2.58 0.04 824795 0.00 0.00 fold_binary_loc
0.52 2.62 0.04 733470 0.00 0.00 invalid_mode_change_p
0.52 2.66 0.04 396082 0.00 0.00 count_reg_usage
0.52 2.70 0.04 238716 0.00 0.00 df_chain_create
0.52 2.74 0.04 210927 0.00 0.00 cse_insn
0.52 2.78 0.04 106118 0.00 0.00 find_reloads
0.52 2.82 0.04 41200 0.00 0.00 dfs_enumerate_from
0.52 2.86 0.04 202 0.00 0.00 run_scc_vn
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18687
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] ~50% compile time regression
[not found] <bug-18687-7958@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (19 preceding siblings ...)
2009-12-28 20:28 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-12-28 20:35 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-12-28 20:39 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-12-28 20:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #46 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-28 20:35 -------
Same thing for hashes100.c (profile in comment #45 is for infcodes100.c), in
both cases cc1 r155486 at -O2 on x86_64):
Flat profile:
Each sample counts as 0.01 seconds.
% cumulative self self total
time seconds seconds calls s/call s/call name
3.59 0.15 0.15 9725444 0.00 0.00 bitmap_set_bit
2.72 0.26 0.11 5517400 0.00 0.00 htab_find_slot_with_hash
1.98 0.34 0.08 _fini
1.73 0.41 0.07 14841100 0.00 0.00 bitmap_bit_p
1.73 0.48 0.07 1336700 0.00 0.00 nonzero_bits1
1.24 0.53 0.05 3776000 0.00 0.00 get_expr_value_id
1.24 0.58 0.05 1248000 0.00 0.00 cselib_lookup
1.24 0.63 0.05 88002 0.00 0.00 free_ira_costs
1.24 0.68 0.05 13300 0.00 0.00 df_worklist_dataflow
0.99 0.72 0.04 2893600 0.00 0.00 is_gimple_min_invariant
0.99 0.76 0.04 761910 0.00 0.00 extract_insn
0.99 0.80 0.04 739736 0.00 0.00 fold_binary_loc
0.99 0.84 0.04 577000 0.00 0.00 for_each_rtx_1
0.99 0.88 0.04 4300 0.00 0.00 remove_unused_locals
0.74 0.91 0.03 5120044 0.00 0.00
tree_strip_nop_conversions
0.74 0.94 0.03 5048648 0.00 0.00 pool_alloc
0.74 0.97 0.03 3330406 0.00 0.00 bitmap_clear
0.74 1.00 0.03 961752 0.00 0.00 rtx_alloc_stat
0.74 1.03 0.03 825000 0.00 0.00 loop_preheader_edge
0.74 1.06 0.03 643822 0.00 0.00 tree_code_size
0.74 1.09 0.03 413900 0.00 0.00 simplify_binary_operation
0.74 1.12 0.03 331100 0.00 0.00
walk_stmt_load_store_addr_ops
0.74 1.15 0.03 100200 0.00 0.00 cse_insn
0.74 1.18 0.03 88700 0.00 0.00 make_compound_operation
0.74 1.21 0.03 79600 0.00 0.00 add_control_edge
0.74 1.24 0.03 35500 0.00 0.00 df_lr_bb_local_compute
0.74 1.27 0.03 300 0.00 0.00 find_costs_and_classes
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18687
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] ~50% compile time regression
[not found] <bug-18687-7958@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (20 preceding siblings ...)
2009-12-28 20:35 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-12-28 20:39 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-12-28 20:40 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-12-28 20:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #47 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-28 20:38 -------
Created an attachment (id=19402)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19402&action=view)
profile for cc1 r155486 on x86_64, options -O2, for infcodes100.c
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18687
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] ~50% compile time regression
[not found] <bug-18687-7958@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (21 preceding siblings ...)
2009-12-28 20:39 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-12-28 20:40 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-12-28 20:46 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-12-28 20:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #48 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-28 20:39 -------
Created an attachment (id=19403)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19403&action=view)
profile for cc1 r155486 on x86_64, options -O2, for hashes100.c
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18687
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] ~50% compile time regression
[not found] <bug-18687-7958@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (22 preceding siblings ...)
2009-12-28 20:40 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-12-28 20:46 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-01-04 23:11 ` [Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] >200% compile time regression compared to gcc-3.4 rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-22 18:12 ` [Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
25 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-12-28 20:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #49 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-28 20:46 -------
For hashes100.c, combine+IRA+expand+tree-PRE accounts for 1/3 of the total
compile time. For infcodes100.c, the profile is more flat, but IRA+expand still
account for 1/4 of the total compile time.
Why is IRA so slow?
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |vmakarov at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18687
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] >200% compile time regression compared to gcc-3.4
[not found] <bug-18687-7958@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (23 preceding siblings ...)
2009-12-28 20:46 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-01-04 23:11 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-22 18:12 ` [Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
25 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-01-04 23:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #50 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-04 23:11 -------
ira_traverse_loop_tree and its callee process_bb_node_for_cost accounts for
nearly as much time as reload takes on hashes.c.
Btw, I find valgrind --tool=callgrind together with kcachegrind a better tool
for benchmarking this kind of stuff - obviously on the smaller testcases. It
has
deterministic timing at least.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18687
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] >200% compile time regression compared to gcc-3.4
[not found] <bug-18687-7958@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (24 preceding siblings ...)
2010-01-04 23:11 ` [Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] >200% compile time regression compared to gcc-3.4 rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-05-22 18:12 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
25 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-05-22 18:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #51 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10 -------
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.3.5 |4.3.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18687
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread