From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30061 invoked by alias); 5 Feb 2013 11:24:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 29929 invoked by uid 48); 5 Feb 2013 11:24:24 -0000 From: "jakub at gcc dot 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 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: jakub 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: 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: 2013-02/txt/msg00374.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55309 --- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek 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.