public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jakub 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 11:24:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-55309-4-FO6tRQZkhm@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-55309-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>


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

--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-02-05 11:24:23 UTC ---
Please, let's not make this PR into a general gcc vs. clang compile time
comparison (see e.g. Vlad Makarov's mails on this topic, if you care more about
compile time than runtime, supposedly e.g. -O1 might be better than -O2), for
this particular PR I think it matters what relative slowdown -fsanitize=address
causes on compile time and runtime for both compilers, and whether with Dodji's
changes help here.  If not, it is time to look at testcases and figure out what
is going on.  Without Dodji's patch we know what's going on and what could make
the difference.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2013-02-05 11:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-11-13 10:01 [Bug other/55309] New: " markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2012-11-13 21:10 ` [Bug other/55309] " konstantin.s.serebryany at gmail dot com
2012-11-13 21:31 ` markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2012-11-14  7:52 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-14 16:38 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-14 17:03 ` markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2013-02-05  9:22 ` [Bug sanitizer/55309] " kcc at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-05  9:43 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-05  9:56 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-05 10:31 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-05 10:42 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-05 10:55 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-05 11:18 ` markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2013-02-05 11:24 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2013-02-05 11:26 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-05 12:23 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-06 10:56 ` dodji at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-06 11:19 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-06 12:25 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-06 12:39 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-06 12:43 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-06 12:49 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-06 15:03 ` dodji at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-07  5:02 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-07 17:01 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-07 17:18 ` dvyukov at google dot com
2013-02-08  6:31 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-08  9:02 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-08  9:13 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-08  9:25 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-11 14:43 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-11 15:03 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-12  6:48 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-12  7:03 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-12  8:40 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-12  8:47 ` dvyukov at google dot com
2013-02-12  8:59 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-12 11:18 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-12 11:31 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-12 11:42 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-12 14:00 ` howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu
2013-02-12 14:12 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-12 14:42 ` howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu
2013-02-22  7:11 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-22  8:31 ` Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
2013-02-22  8:36 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-22 13:09 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-22 13:52 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-22 13:55 ` Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
2013-02-22 14:30 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-22 14:54 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-22 15:01 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-22 15:04 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-22 15:06 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-22 15:14 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-22 16:11 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2013-02-26  7:43 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-28 11:32 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-01-27  8:22 ` trippels at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-55309-4-FO6tRQZkhm@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).