public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "ott at fb dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/60976] Compilation with G++ 4.9.0 is 2-3 times slower than with 4.8.2 Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 22:42:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-60976-4-JFUobx0muV@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-60976-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60976 --- Comment #22 from Giuseppe Ottaviano <ott at fb dot com> --- >> The regression might have been already solved in r225244, which uses >> yet another SFINAE pattern without extra template arguments, which I >> believe are the cause of the regression. However I haven't tested it >> yet. > That would be nice to know, because I now use that kind of > void_t-style constraint in a few places, and plan to use it more > widely. My measurements do show that using void_t-style constraints > result in small but measurable reductions in compile time and memory > use. > Oh, I looked at the wrong bit of r225244, it's using SFINAE in a > trailing-return-type that matters here, not the __detected_or_t_ > changes. Yes I referred to the trailing return type. Unfortunately it's not trivial to test it with our code because alloc_traits.h is not anymore a drop-in replacement. Maybe the test code included in this bug is enough? Is r225244 already included in a GCC release?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-10-19 22:42 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2014-04-26 15:36 [Bug c++/60976] New: " astellar at ro dot ru 2014-04-26 15:37 ` [Bug c++/60976] " astellar at ro dot ru 2014-04-26 15:38 ` astellar at ro dot ru 2014-04-26 15:38 ` astellar at ro dot ru 2014-04-28 22:56 ` astellar at ro dot ru 2014-04-28 22:56 ` astellar at ro dot ru 2014-04-28 22:57 ` astellar at ro dot ru 2014-04-28 22:58 ` astellar at ro dot ru 2014-04-28 22:58 ` astellar at ro dot ru 2014-04-28 22:59 ` astellar at ro dot ru 2014-04-29 7:58 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-04-08 7:00 ` rene.koecher@wincor-nixdorf.com 2015-04-08 8:42 ` trippels at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-04-08 9:02 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-04-09 7:16 ` rene.koecher@wincor-nixdorf.com 2015-04-09 9:07 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-04-09 9:10 ` rene.koecher@wincor-nixdorf.com 2015-04-09 9:12 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-04-09 9:47 ` trippels at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-10-19 19:21 ` ott at fb dot com 2015-10-19 20:54 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-10-19 21:25 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-10-19 22:42 ` ott at fb dot com [this message] 2015-10-20 0:05 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-10-21 3:32 ` ott at fb dot com 2015-10-21 19:33 ` ott at fb dot com 2015-10-21 20:27 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-10-22 6:35 ` rene.koecher@wincor-nixdorf.com 2015-10-22 7:12 ` ott at fb dot com 2015-10-25 2:56 ` redi 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-60976-4-JFUobx0muV@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: linkBe 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).