From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-414217-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 5115 invoked by alias); 5 Feb 2013 12:23:28 -0000
Received: (qmail 4722 invoked by uid 48); 5 Feb 2013 12:22:58 -0000
From: "kcc at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug sanitizer/55309] gcc's address-sanitizer 66% slower than clang's
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 12:23:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: sanitizer
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: kcc at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-55309-4-8gwzZjZNu9@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-55309-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-55309-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2013-02/txt/msg00382.txt.bz2


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55309

--- Comment #15 from Kostya Serebryany <kcc at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-02-05 12:22:56 UTC ---
Well, I of course can change the SPEC code
         464.h264ref,      1271.00,        1879.00,        1.47

As for Dodji's patch: can someone attach it here? 
Let me benchmark it too, although if that's just optimizing within one BB
I don't expect more than 5% difference (based on my experiments in llvm). 

Dodji, what are your numbers?