From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28186 invoked by alias); 5 Feb 2013 11:18:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 28051 invoked by uid 48); 5 Feb 2013 11:17:44 -0000 From: "markus at trippelsdorf dot de" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug sanitizer/55309] gcc's address-sanitizer 66% slower than clang's Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 11:18:00 -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: markus at trippelsdorf dot de 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/msg00373.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55309 --- Comment #12 from Markus Trippelsdorf 2013-02-05 11:17:42 UTC --- (In reply to comment #9) > > And, for compile time, you want to be testing with --enable-checking=release > Thanks! > With --enable-checking=release gcc's compile time drops to 374 seconds. > That's much better, but still 50% slower than clang (built with asserts) Hmm, that means gcc is 35% slower (374 vs. 243). That is exactly the slowdown that I see in all my tests. (So switching to clang is like moving from a 4-core to a 6-core machine from a compile time perspective.)