From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 94F023858C5F; Thu,  9 Feb 2023 13:36:49 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 94F023858C5F
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1675949809;
	bh=vO4UhL4wo9HdCiPkE2k6Or/H9myeWV4CeqFb09lGIuw=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=xJN8vCYygIg/VUSZ0mNK17Cp81jx3PSghwBLBp78dBQ6eGsVVgFPAg39W/sfKOQ+w
	 lJ8ypnbdBYMEa/4wDMLarard7UabsNiK58pqdfpbODINB5OvUK1YBcrXuUvn9eqBGf
	 M0g3r9FpT1SkzvMMmWq1pQAVfXmp3XuckSM9QpJM=
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/108705] [13 Regression] Unexpected CPU time
 usage with LTO in ranger propagation
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2023 13:36:48 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: compile-time-hog
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: WAITING
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: everconfirmed cc bug_status cf_reconfirmed_on
Message-ID: <bug-108705-4-lSYK2oex7z@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-108705-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-108705-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D108705

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1
                 CC|                            |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |WAITING
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2023-02-09

--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Hmm, so how's this supposed to be reproduced?  Even with separate TUs for t=
he
two functions I can't get a slow compile?

How many 'call foo ...' stmts am I supposed to have?=