From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16360 invoked by alias); 10 Nov 2002 21:56:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 16345 invoked by uid 71); 10 Nov 2002 21:56:02 -0000 Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 13:56:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20021110215602.16344.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Wolfgang Bangerth Subject: Re: c++/1687: Extreme compile time regression from 2.95.2 Reply-To: Wolfgang Bangerth X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00494.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c++/1687; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Wolfgang Bangerth To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, , , , Zack Weinberg Cc: Subject: Re: c++/1687: Extreme compile time regression from 2.95.2 Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 15:51:12 -0600 (CST) Zack, you had a patch for this problem, as mentioned in the audit. Do you know whether it was applied? I cannot find it in the ChangeLogs. At any rate, I get reasonable compile times with -O2: tmp/g> time /home/bangerth/bin/gcc-3.3x-pre/bin/gcc -O2 -c x.cc real 0m0.168s user 0m0.150s sys 0m0.010s tmp/g> time /home/bangerth/bin/gcc-3.3x-pre/bin/gcc -O2 -c x.cc real 0m0.261s user 0m0.150s sys 0m0.000s However, at -O3 it still takes forever, now with both C and C++, which seems a further regression (since previously this held only for C++). I don't trust this for various reasons, so maybe someone can confirm this with -O3? Regards Wolfgang ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolfgang Bangerth email: bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu www: http://www.ticam.utexas.edu/~bangerth