From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21570 invoked by alias); 9 Sep 2010 09:01:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 21057 invoked by uid 48); 9 Sep 2010 09:00:46 -0000 Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 09:01:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100909090046.21056.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug fortran/44334] rnflow.f90 ~27% slower with -fwhole-program -flto after revision 159852 In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "burnus 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: 2010-09/txt/msg01166.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #11 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-09 09:00 ------- [Move comment from IRC #gcc to bugzilla] (In reply to comment #9) > For what it is worth, on AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ / x86-64-linux, [...] > That's a +16% increase in run-time with -fwhole-program. (In reply to comment #10) > So hot-bb-frequency-fraction solves the whole regression? For me (cf. system above), --param hot-bb-frequency-fraction=2000 reduces the slow down due to -fwhole-program from 16% to 3%. (The LTO version with and without -fwhole-file is about 2% slower than the corresponding -fno-lto version.) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44334