From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6070 invoked by alias); 6 Mar 2013 10:57:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 4495 invoked by uid 55); 6 Mar 2013 10:57:16 -0000 From: "rguenther at suse dot de" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug middle-end/47344] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression][meta-bug] GCC gets slower and uses more memory Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 10:57:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end X-Bugzilla-Keywords: compile-time-hog, memory-hog, meta-bug X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.6.4 X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 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: 2013-03/txt/msg00473.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47344 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-03-06 10:57:15 UTC --- On Wed, 6 Mar 2013, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47344 > > --- Comment #7 from Steven Bosscher 2013-03-06 10:51:27 UTC --- > This bug looks like the wrong idea to me. Old is apparently anything > older than the maintained release branches, but many users "in the field" > still use older compilers that come with their respective distributions. > > For instance a regresion that is present since GCC 4.6 but not in GCC 4.5 > gets reduced in importance and visibility by not marking it as regression > and instead only adding it to this grab-a-bag PR. Example of such a case > is bug 53958. > > This is a change of old existing policy that any regression should be > marked as such. This policy change should have been discussed (and IMHO > rejected) on the GCC mailing list. > > Also, this meta-bug depends on not-so-old regressions, so it's already > more like a collection of compile/memory hog issues than a collection > point for apparently "unimportant" regressions. All these regressions clutter the list of important regressions. All of them are present in more or less severe form in all maintained branches. There is a similar issue for missed-optimization regressions that are long-standing.