From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-499974-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 21888 invoked by alias); 19 Oct 2015 21:25:27 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 21571 invoked by uid 48); 19 Oct 2015 21:25:22 -0000
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <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 21:25:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: compile-time-hog
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution:
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-60976-4-KxUKwp1vk6@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-60976-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-60976-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2015-10/txt/msg01529.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60976

--- Comment #21 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #20)
> (In reply to Giuseppe Ottaviano from comment #19)
> > 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.