public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "ishikawa at yk dot rim.or.jp" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/94781] version 9.3 g++ compilation time is slower by 20% or much more (closer to 50 % sometimes) in comparison to v7. Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 10:09:56 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-94781-4-xjqlVRze53@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-94781-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94781 --- Comment #5 from ishikawa,chiaki <ishikawa at yk dot rim.or.jp> --- Thank you for your comment. (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4) > The time-report you attached is mostly flat and I don't see anything > eye-popping pointing at a regression. With -O0 my GCC9 is faster (well, > noise). I was concerned with the ELAPSED time, and I notice that, in my testing, "phase last asm" of v9 and v8 spent a tad long time than v7. v9 phase last asm : 6.03 ( 5%) 0.24 ( 2%) 19.07 ( 12%) 127204 kB ( 2%) v8 phase last asm : 5.62 ( 4%) 0.24 ( 2%) 15.43 ( 10%) 103215 kB ( 2%) v7 phase last asm : 4.03 ( 3%) usr 0.16 ( 1%) sys 6.51 ( 5%) wall 101000 kB ( 2%) ggc v9 spends more than 12 seconds and v8 spends about 9 seconds longer than v7. But I am not sure what this "phase last asm" does and why it spends more ELAPSED time in v9 and v8 than in v7. > Confirmed for -O2: > > > /usr/bin/time /space/rguenther/install/gcc-7.5/bin/g++ -S UnifiedBindings23-v7.cpp -std=gnu++1z -w -O2 > 112.50user 1.83system 2:01.65elapsed 93%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata > 2732664maxresident)k > 1952inputs+36528outputs (6major+678054minor)pagefaults 0swaps > > /usr/bin/time /space/rguenther/install/gcc-8.4/bin/g++ -S UnifiedBindings23-v7.cpp -std=gnu++1z -w -O2 > 83.44user 1.27system 1:26.34elapsed 98%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata > 2789396maxresident)k > 48640inputs+41088outputs (62major+687702minor)pagefaults 0swaps > > /usr/bin/time /space/rguenther/install/gcc-9.3/bin/g++ -S UnifiedBindings23-v7.cpp -std=gnu++1z -w -O2 > 128.28user 1.90system 2:19.51elapsed 93%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata > 2695708maxresident)k > > Note how my GCC 8 build is significantly faster than GCC 7! Hmm... Did you use special flag to create your compiler? I am using AMD Ryzen 7 1700 eight core CPU (my linux runs inside VirtualBox image under Windows 10 and it is assigned 7 virtual CPU core.). Maybe I need to build my own G++ compiler tuned for AMD Ryzen 7 if you used a special compiler flags when you built your V8 and V9 compiler because the elapsed time difference between v7 and v9 is rather smallish in comparison to the difference I observed on my PC (module the option difference.) > > note that this kind of regression can easily happen because we generate > more code because of some different optimization decisions. For example > the GCC 8 generated object is > > > size UnifiedBindings23-v7.o > text data bss dec hex filename > 2502864 10136 37392 2550392 26ea78 UnifiedBindings23-v7.o > > while GCC 9 generates > > > size UnifiedBindings23-v7.o > text data bss dec hex filename > 2788944 16488 37392 2842824 2b60c8 UnifiedBindings23-v7.o > > I realize I didn't use the full set of options you did (in particular I > omitted > -g). The few extra options I needed to omit for v7 and v8 might explain the slow down. I will check for this by removing the options from v9 compilation as well. > My tests also seem noisy (machine isn't idle, 2nd run of the GCC 9 > compile > dialed in at 100s) I bet you are using very fast CPU :-)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-27 10:09 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-04-27 1:24 [Bug c++/94781] New: " ishikawa at yk dot rim.or.jp 2020-04-27 1:55 ` [Bug c++/94781] " ishikawa at yk dot rim.or.jp 2020-04-27 4:25 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-04-27 4:50 ` ishikawa at yk dot rim.or.jp 2020-04-27 7:17 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-04-27 10:09 ` ishikawa at yk dot rim.or.jp [this message] 2020-05-05 8:23 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-05-06 7:02 ` ishikawa at yk dot rim.or.jp 2020-05-06 7:16 ` ishikawa at yk dot rim.or.jp 2020-05-06 8:59 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-05-06 9:19 ` ishikawa at yk dot rim.or.jp 2020-05-06 9:24 ` marxin 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-94781-4-xjqlVRze53@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).