From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-367588-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 30939 invoked by alias); 15 May 2014 15:08:23 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 30924 invoked by uid 89); 15 May 2014 15:08:22 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 15 May 2014 15:08:21 +0000
Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11])	by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s4FF8FRd022714	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK);	Thu, 15 May 2014 11:08:16 -0400
Received: from redhat.com (ovpn-116-22.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.22])	by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s4FF8Ach019774	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);	Thu, 15 May 2014 11:08:13 -0400
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 15:08:00 -0000
From: Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com>
To: ramrad01@arm.com
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>, Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>,        Dodji Seketeli <dseketel@redhat.com>,        Konstantin Serebryany <konstantin.s.serebryany@gmail.com>,        Tobias Burnus <burnus@net-b.de>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,        Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford@googlemail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add support for -fno-sanitize-recover and -fsanitize-undefined-trap-on-error (PR sanitizer/60275)
Message-ID: <20140515150810.GD8173@redhat.com>
References: <20140415101156.GB1817@tucnak.redhat.com> <87a9ajfi5r.fsf@talisman.default> <20140515103357.GL10386@tucnak.redhat.com> <CAJA7tRb=HJb3srtHqb3QBp03ujyBWkHmjQWU0ey8F_qN99gzng@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJA7tRb=HJb3srtHqb3QBp03ujyBWkHmjQWU0ey8F_qN99gzng@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
X-SW-Source: 2014-05/txt/msg01203.txt.bz2

On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:39:26AM +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> What's the overhead with bootstrap-ubsan ?

I timed normal bootstrap and bootstrap-ubsan on x86_64, 24 cores,
Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5670  @ 2.93GHz (aka cfarm 20) and the results:

--enable-languages=all

real	35m10.419s
user	204m5.613s
sys	6m15.615s

--enable-languages=all --with-build-config=bootstrap-ubsan

real	71m39.338s
user	347m53.409s
sys	7m44.281s

	Marek