From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 74263 invoked by alias); 17 Apr 2019 00:28:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 74254 invoked by uid 89); 17 Apr 2019 00:28:35 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FORGED_HOTMAIL_RCVD2,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,KAM_NUMSUBJECT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.1 spammy=snapshots, H*c:alternative, H*c:HHH, H*F:D*hotmail.com X-HELO: NAM02-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com Received: from mail-oln040092005032.outbound.protection.outlook.com (HELO NAM02-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com) (40.92.5.32) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 00:28:34 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hotmail.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=H/muu15uUEF+UzumjVi8Q9rUDyDFNjTzoqMVDjVgfc0=; b=tV1g0k12CsjtAjhuztJMU2rwy3muDrRa/gIrg41/oezZZ6DbuT1acvu8eratNcDpo0Dzqpm6mf9daaNonxG0DoYHjZ6rKarKsMmmlqp/S8+LgMAnMZ0TrakQfYBe/LIJ8nBg11huCs4jUn90pHxRoCZDEg+U9N5zOqc/NE7CAeHKne1R/lU+GoZ/tx3Tq8EWmT9Nh9+m0I4PuavtbWFGnOSGXoi5R7pU+ZN6nskTx7rM7mMlnIoJpsQIuqazc5QoRstXn8VIdjozxE55S62uPzdL1MPPrnoUg+fFq2xbLrQD+boPV9pnKOZjuV63aLhbELF1VcTTbTf5Q6vZNuxnxg== Received: from BL2NAM02FT025.eop-nam02.prod.protection.outlook.com (10.152.76.55) by BL2NAM02HT202.eop-nam02.prod.protection.outlook.com (10.152.76.175) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.20.1771.16; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 00:28:32 +0000 Received: from BYAPR06MB4710.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.152.76.56) by BL2NAM02FT025.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.152.77.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.20.1771.16 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 00:28:32 +0000 Received: from BYAPR06MB4710.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::9434:3c1a:d14d:e06a]) by BYAPR06MB4710.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::9434:3c1a:d14d:e06a%3]) with mapi id 15.20.1813.011; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 00:28:31 +0000 From: Jason Mancini To: "gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: gcc9 snapshot 20190414 is 30x slower than gcc 6.3 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 00:28:00 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SW-Source: 2019-04/txt/msg00080.txt.bz2 Using gcc 6.3, my C++ source file compiles in 1m2s with -O0. With snapshot= 20190414 (compiled with --disable-checking and -O2 and make install-strip)= , it takes 31 minutes to compile the same file with -O0. Have I overlooked= disabling some snapshot self-checking code? Are there known configuration= mistakes that could result in this sort of performance degradation? Thank= s! It will take a while to go back and try other gcc 6, 7, 8, and 9 snapsh= ots to collect points of reference. Both are pretty heavy on memory, gcc6 = uses 3.7G and gcc9 uses 5.4G for this file. There's a lot of templatized h= eaders.