From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4161 invoked by alias); 18 Oct 2002 14:28:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 4142 invoked from network); 18 Oct 2002 14:27:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO caip.rutgers.edu) (128.6.236.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Oct 2002 14:27:57 -0000 Received: (from ghazi@localhost) by caip.rutgers.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA07215; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:27:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:02:00 -0000 From: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" Message-Id: <200210181427.KAA07215@caip.rutgers.edu> To: dnovillo@redhat.com Subject: Re: Bootstrap times on mainline are getting worse Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, ritzert@t-online.de, schwab@suse.de References: <20021017144047.GA13629@tornado.toronto.redhat.com> <200210180359.XAA24196@caip.rutgers.edu> <20021018112206.GA22977@tornado.toronto.redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg01112.txt.bz2 > From: Diego Novillo > > On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: > > > That would be a proper "apples to apples" comparison upon which you > > could draw conclusions about whether compile-time speed was slowing > > down. I'm not saying it isn't slowing down, but that the figures > > posted so far aren't actually measuring that AFAICT. > > Very good point. I should've thought of that before. We could > analyze SPEC build times instead. > > http://people.redhat.com/dnovillo/spec95/gcc/global-build-secs_elapsed.html > > For CINT95 base, we have a 6% increase in build times since > Sep19. There is a noticeable jump around Oct06. > Diego. Ok that settles it, thanks for checking. Since it's so sharp, now we just need someone to binary search Oct 5-7 and figure out which patch did it. Care to take a stab? --Kaveh -- Kaveh R. Ghazi ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu