From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1883 invoked by alias); 6 Feb 2013 10:56:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 1534 invoked by uid 48); 6 Feb 2013 10:55:42 -0000 From: "dodji 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: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 10:56:00 -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: dodji 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/msg00497.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55309 --- Comment #16 from Dodji Seketeli 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.