From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27586 invoked by alias); 6 Nov 2009 15:16:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 27571 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Nov 2009 15:16:36 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-bw0-f211.google.com (HELO mail-bw0-f211.google.com) (209.85.218.211) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:16:32 +0000 Received: by bwz3 with SMTP id 3so1344082bwz.16 for ; Fri, 06 Nov 2009 07:16:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.13.204 with SMTP id d12mr4797669bka.61.1257520589847; Fri, 06 Nov 2009 07:16:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?192.168.2.99? (cpc2-cmbg8-0-0-cust61.cmbg.cable.ntl.com [82.6.108.62]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 9sm426852fks.4.2009.11.06.07.16.27 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 06 Nov 2009 07:16:28 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4AF44168.1080600@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:16:00 -0000 From: Dave Korn User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Basile STARYNKEVITCH CC: GCC Mailing List Subject: Re: very different compilation times [no optimisation] References: <4AF43ADB.3080503@starynkevitch.net> In-Reply-To: <4AF43ADB.3080503@starynkevitch.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-11/txt/msg00131.txt.bz2 Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote: > The preprocessed warmelt-normal-1.i has 225697 lines or 11470145 bytes. > [Should I make a bugreport with it on GCC/Bugzilla?] From the sound of it, it should bzip fairly well. > I am very surprised by the difference of compilation time between 4.3 & > 4.4. Me too. I'm particularly surprised if none of the automated checkers have spotted it, maybe there's something your code triggers that they don't exercise, so you probably should file a PR. cheers, DaveK