public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "dodji 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: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 10:56:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-55309-4-UGQRHKacJO@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 #16 from Dodji Seketeli <dodji at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-02-06 10:55:38 UTC ---
Created attachment 29366
  --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29366
Candidate patch to avoid duplicated intra bb instrumentation

> As for Dodji's patch: can someone attach it here?

Here is the attachment of what I currently have.

> Let me benchmark it too,

Thank you, that would be very appreciated.

> although if that's just optimizing within one BB I don't expect more
> than 5% difference (based on my experiments in llvm).

That would be what I'd expect too, based on my experiments on GCC.
But then I'd be very curious to hear about your findings.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2013-02-06 10:56 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
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 [this message]
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-UGQRHKacJO@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).