From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4256 invoked by alias); 17 Apr 2019 02:10:04 -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 4242 invoked by uid 89); 17 Apr 2019 02:10:03 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FORGED_HOTMAIL_RCVD2,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_NUMSUBJECT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.1 spammy=6.4, decades, H*F:D*hotmail.com X-HELO: NAM05-DM3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com Received: from mail-oln040092014056.outbound.protection.outlook.com (HELO NAM05-DM3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com) (40.92.14.56) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 02:10:02 +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=3XjGe1bgHDxpFI89qK1LmqLjo1TCqqOh2ybFt/ecy24=; b=VZZw5k76npTaP/jxzKST0krmDjpdWB83GvEHpy8K8aEPMqCOQ45OGwJGvJ/dKItf9XOvgV875q5ubhptu+dvA+3BWaZRcf09p1RRQN9Yy17EbslXAcFmyz+2HjFvnQKIWEovxKca2sLiWljQ8JyxCN63HexVTEwtaaBkQFRReFL9tF7QaRFvdPqnNuFZ5+/b6vxJ74TITU+MizNbJmU+qGat042Y+yqQkcecbzocZmBD+YPib7sQ2Achc7lHOS0QEAdroqHtsFSzIEUa4LkAi3j3s7pXnHKPer7E7lRkSFOPKl86ek8anDi6S4LAK3XCConI13mqNXIx0K6toZHJhA== Received: from BY2NAM05FT012.eop-nam05.prod.protection.outlook.com (10.152.100.56) by BY2NAM05HT101.eop-nam05.prod.protection.outlook.com (10.152.101.46) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.20.1792.7; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 02:10:00 +0000 Received: from BYAPR06MB4710.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.152.100.60) by BY2NAM05FT012.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.152.100.149) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1792.7 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 02:10:00 +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 02:09:59 +0000 From: Jason Mancini To: "gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: gcc9 snapshot 20190414 is 30x slower than gcc 6.3 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 02:10:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2019-04/txt/msg00081.txt.bz2 > Using gcc 6.3, my C++ source file compiles in 1m2s with -O0.=A0 With snap= shot 20190414 (compiled with --disable-checking > and -O2 and make install-strip), it takes 31 minutes to compile the same = file with -O0.=A0 Have I overlooked disabling some > snapshot self-checking code?=A0 Are there known configuration mistakes th= at could result in this sort of performance > degradation?=A0 Thanks!=A0 It will take a while to go back and try other = gcc 6, 7, 8, and 9 snapshots to collect points of reference. > Both are pretty heavy on memory, gcc6 uses 3.7G and gcc9 uses 5.4G for th= is file.=A0 There's a lot of templatized headers. Latest data points: gcc-6.3/6.4 take about 43 seconds gcc-7.2 takes 30 minutes gcc-8.2 takes 27 minutes gcc-9.0 takes 31 minutes (snapshot 20190414) clang 6.0.1/7.01 take about 31 seconds This is frustrating, as I'm going to have to capitulate to using clang here= for a very large user base. We've been a gcc shop for decades.