[Bug middle-end/38059] New: Compile time regression for gcc.dg/20020425-1.c

[Bug middle-end/38059] New: Compile time regression for gcc.dg/20020425-1.c

[danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org]

The test now fails.  It doesn't fail on previous GCC versions.
Timing the compilation, I see:

real    6m49.686s
user    6m49.490s
sys     0m0.210s


-- 
           Summary: Compile time regression for gcc.dg/20020425-1.c
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.4.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: middle-end
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
 GCC build triplet: hppa64-hp-hpux11.11
  GCC host triplet: hppa64-hp-hpux11.11
GCC target triplet: hppa64-hp-hpux11.11


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38059

[Bug middle-end/38059] [4.4/4.5 Regression] Compile time regression for gcc.dg/20020425-1.c

[jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|Compile time regression for |[4.4/4.5 Regression] Compile
                   |gcc.dg/20020425-1.c         |time regression for
                   |                            |gcc.dg/20020425-1.c
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.4.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38059

[Bug middle-end/38059] [4.4/4.5 Regression] Compile time regression for gcc.dg/20020425-1.c

[jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-04-01 08:35 -------
You haven't shown how long did it take in earlier versions, this test is
already known to take eons (and when gimplify.o isn't built with optimizations
even ICE on many targets) and has /* { dg-timeout-factor 4.0 } */ already. 
What slows down the test is extremely deep recursion above 22000-33000 calls in
the backtrace (for each ONE either just gimplify_expr and gimplify_cond_expr,
or even gimplify_stmt in the backtrace).  Even a small RA decision affecting
these functions can show up when multiplied by 11000, but the testcase is
clearly artificial and not worth optimizing for.


-- 

jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Priority|P3                          |P5


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38059

[Bug middle-end/38059] [4.4/4.5 Regression] Compile time regression for gcc.dg/20020425-1.c

[jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|4.4.0                       |4.4.1


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38059

[Bug middle-end/38059] [4.4/4.5 Regression] Compile time regression for gcc.dg/20020425-1.c

[jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|4.4.1                       |4.4.2


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38059

[Bug middle-end/38059] [4.4/4.5 Regression] Compile time regression for gcc.dg/20020425-1.c

[jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|4.4.2                       |4.4.3


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38059

[Bug middle-end/38059] [4.4/4.5 Regression] Compile time regression for gcc.dg/20020425-1.c

[jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|4.4.3                       |4.4.4


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38059

[Bug middle-end/38059] [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] Compile time regression for gcc.dg/20020425-1.c

[jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|4.4.4                       |4.4.5


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38059

[Bug middle-end/38059] [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] Compile time regression for gcc.dg/20020425-1.c

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38059

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|4.4.5                       |4.4.6

[Bug middle-end/38059] [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] Compile time regression for gcc.dg/20020425-1.c

[steven at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38059

Steven Bosscher <steven at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |steven at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #2 from Steven Bosscher <steven at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-03-05 00:20:18 UTC ---
Would anyone object to WONTFIX for this one?

[Bug middle-end/38059] [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] Compile time regression for gcc.dg/20020425-1.c

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38059

Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2011.03.05 14:13:46
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-03-05 14:13:46 UTC ---
Hm, if we have that deep recursion then aren't we prone to the original
problem the test tests for, a stack overflow in the C parser?

And it does ...

$ /obj/trunk-g/gcc/xgcc -B/obj/trunk-g/gcc/
/home/richard/src/trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/20020425-1.c    -ansi
-pedantic-errors -S  -o 20020425-1.s   
xgcc: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault (program cc1)
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See <http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions.

if one doesn't raise stack limits like dejagnu does.

I think this is definitely worth fixing (removing the recursion in
gimplify_cond_expr).  A regression to pre-tree-SSA.