* GCC 3.4.0 20040114 + GCC 3.3.2 compile-time performance comparison on MICO project sources. @ 2004-01-19 19:43 Karel Gardas 2004-01-19 19:49 ` Eric Christopher 2004-01-20 9:20 ` [UPDATED] " Karel Gardas 0 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Karel Gardas @ 2004-01-19 19:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: GCC Mailing List Hello, I have just build MICO 2.3.11's ORB core directory (http://www.mico.org) with both compilers from subject with -time -O0 -Wall -DPIC -fPIC -c options and the comparison table looks: [1] File [2] GCC 3.3.2 [3] GCC 3.4.0 20040114 [4] Delta % [1] [2] [3] [4] os-unix.cc 4.91 5.33 -7.88 dii.cc 17.45 18.58 -6.08 typecode.cc 10.2 10.51 -2.95 any.cc 7.51 7.65 -1.83 codec.cc 6.57 6.68 -1.65 buffer.cc 4.13 3.94 4.82 context.cc 4.22 4.15 1.69 except.cc 5.29 5.67 -6.7 dispatch.cc 5.23 5.62 -6.94 string.cc 4.09 3.95 3.54 object.cc 5.62 5.81 -3.27 address.cc 5.73 6.05 -5.29 ior.cc 16.98 18.27 -7.06 orb.cc 22.46 23.08 -2.69 boa.cc 10.32 10.98 -6.01 dsi.cc 14.83 16.01 -7.37 transport.cc 5.01 5.25 -4.57 t..port/tcp.cc 4.73 5.17 -8.51 t..port/udp.cc 4.73 5.24 -9.73 t..port/unix.cc 4.79 5.19 -7.71 iop.cc 20.54 22.42 -8.39 util.cc 6.5 7.02 -7.41 basic_seq.cc 4.34 4.32 0.46 fast_array.cc 4.7 4.67 0.64 ssl.cc 13.66 15.15 -9.83 fixed.cc 4.43 4.34 2.07 intercept.cc 14.66 15.75 -6.92 codeset.cc 6.44 6.91 -6.8 queue.cc 5.14 5.51 -6.72 static.cc 25.59 26.58 -3.72 current.cc 13.19 14.84 -11.12 policy_impl.cc 17.3 18.8 -7.98 service_info.cc 13.18 14.63 -9.91 ioptypes.cc 15.01 16.51 -9.09 ssliop.cc 13.45 14.74 -8.75 value.cc 15.72 16.66 -5.64 valuetype.cc 14.31 15.88 -9.89 v..type_impl.cc 17.02 18.64 -8.69 dynany_impl.cc 11.02 11.74 -6.13 policy2.cc 13.37 14.77 -9.48 tckind.cc 13.17 14.87 -11.43 orb_excepts.cc 13.26 14.89 -10.95 policy.cc 13.29 14.52 -8.47 poa.cc 17.16 19.07 -10.02 poa_base.cc 14.43 15.95 -9.53 poa_impl.cc 22.55 23.81 -5.29 dynany.cc 14.52 15.97 -9.08 uni_base64.cc 0.1 0.12 -16.67 uni_unicode.cc 0.17 0.21 -19.05 uni_fromuni.cc 0.35 0.41 -14.63 uni_touni.cc 0.38 0.47 -19.15 except2.cc 7.06 7.47 -5.49 pi.cc 15.61 17.53 -10.95 pi_impl.cc 23.57 24.79 -4.92 typecode_seq.cc 13.58 14.99 -9.41 timebase.cc 13.24 14.44 -8.31 ir.cc 59.49 53.89 10.39 ir_base.cc 16.19 17.64 -8.22 imr.cc 19.07 23.93 -20.31 mtdebug.cc 4.6 4.61 -0.22 Sum 696.16 742.59 -6.25 So as you can see, we have about six percents slowdown with the GCC 3.4.0 in comparison with GCC 3.3.2. In case anybody is interested, I would be happy to provide him/her with some interesting preprocessed files for more detailed testing. Thanks for your work on GCC! Karel PS: GCC 3.4.0 was configured with: thinkpad:~$ c++ -v Reading specs from /home/karel/usr/local/gcc-main/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/3.4.0/specs Configured with: ../gcc-main/configure --prefix=/home/karel/usr/local/gcc-main --enable-shared --enable-threads --enable-languages=c++ --disable-checking --enable-__cxa_atexit Thread model: posix gcc version 3.4.0 20040114 (experimental) GCC 3.3.2 was configured with: thinkpad:~$ c++ -v Reading specs from /home/karel/usr/local/gcc3.3.2/lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-linux-gnu/3.3.2/specs Configured with: ../gcc-3_3-branch/configure --prefix=/home/karel/usr/local/gcc3.3.2 --enable-shared --enable-threads --enable-languages=c++ --disable-checking --enable-__cxa_atexit Thread model: posix gcc version 3.3.2 thinkpad:/mnt/karel/sl3-for-atlas/demo/security/atlas-sl3$ PPS: Are you also interested in optimized (-O2) build? -- Karel Gardas kgardas@objectsecurity.com ObjectSecurity Ltd. http://www.objectsecurity.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: GCC 3.4.0 20040114 + GCC 3.3.2 compile-time performance comparison on MICO project sources. 2004-01-19 19:43 GCC 3.4.0 20040114 + GCC 3.3.2 compile-time performance comparison on MICO project sources Karel Gardas @ 2004-01-19 19:49 ` Eric Christopher 2004-01-19 19:53 ` Karel Gardas 2004-01-20 9:20 ` [UPDATED] " Karel Gardas 1 sibling, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Eric Christopher @ 2004-01-19 19:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Karel Gardas; +Cc: GCC Mailing List > > PPS: Are you also interested in optimized (-O2) build? Probably more than the other :) Thanks for the mail though. Perhaps a bug report into bugzilla with a url on where someone can download the .ii files would be best :) -eric -- Eric Christopher <echristo@redhat.com> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: GCC 3.4.0 20040114 + GCC 3.3.2 compile-time performance comparison on MICO project sources. 2004-01-19 19:49 ` Eric Christopher @ 2004-01-19 19:53 ` Karel Gardas 2004-01-19 19:57 ` Eric Christopher 2004-01-19 20:01 ` Gerald Pfeifer 0 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Karel Gardas @ 2004-01-19 19:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eric Christopher; +Cc: GCC Mailing List On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Eric Christopher wrote: > > > > > PPS: Are you also interested in optimized (-O2) build? > > Probably more than the other :) OK, I have thought that the -O0 -g (perhaps) build is the most important from compile-time performance view, as it is probably used for development... > Thanks for the mail though. Perhaps a bug report into bugzilla with a > url on where someone can download the .ii files would be best :) I will try to provide something this week. Cheers, Karel -- Karel Gardas kgardas@objectsecurity.com ObjectSecurity Ltd. http://www.objectsecurity.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: GCC 3.4.0 20040114 + GCC 3.3.2 compile-time performance comparison on MICO project sources. 2004-01-19 19:53 ` Karel Gardas @ 2004-01-19 19:57 ` Eric Christopher 2004-01-19 20:01 ` Gerald Pfeifer 1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Eric Christopher @ 2004-01-19 19:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Karel Gardas; +Cc: GCC Mailing List > OK, I have thought that the -O0 -g (perhaps) build is the most important > from compile-time performance view, as it is probably used for > development... > Don't get me wrong, both are useful. For some reason my mind is hitting that we're doing more stuff up front to allow for better optimization later though. > > Thanks for the mail though. Perhaps a bug report into bugzilla with a > > url on where someone can download the .ii files would be best :) > > I will try to provide something this week. Thanks. -eric -- Eric Christopher <echristo@redhat.com> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: GCC 3.4.0 20040114 + GCC 3.3.2 compile-time performance comparison on MICO project sources. 2004-01-19 19:53 ` Karel Gardas 2004-01-19 19:57 ` Eric Christopher @ 2004-01-19 20:01 ` Gerald Pfeifer 2004-01-19 20:06 ` Karel Gardas 1 sibling, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Gerald Pfeifer @ 2004-01-19 20:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Karel Gardas; +Cc: Eric Christopher, GCC Mailing List On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Karel Gardas wrote: > OK, I have thought that the -O0 -g (perhaps) build is the most important > from compile-time performance view, as it is probably used for > development... Just as an example, in DLV (origin of PR8361) I switched to -O1 years ago because that was _faster_ than -O0 at that time, debugging was still okay, and test runs with the generated binary were much faster. -O0 really is not too useful in some contexts. Gerald -- Gerald Pfeifer <gp@suse.de> Technical Project Manager, SUSE Linux AG ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: GCC 3.4.0 20040114 + GCC 3.3.2 compile-time performance comparison on MICO project sources. 2004-01-19 20:01 ` Gerald Pfeifer @ 2004-01-19 20:06 ` Karel Gardas 0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Karel Gardas @ 2004-01-19 20:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gerald Pfeifer; +Cc: GCC Mailing List On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Karel Gardas wrote: > > OK, I have thought that the -O0 -g (perhaps) build is the most important > > from compile-time performance view, as it is probably used for > > development... > > Just as an example, in DLV (origin of PR8361) I switched to -O1 years > ago because that was _faster_ than -O0 at that time, debugging was still > okay, and test runs with the generated binary were much faster. > > -O0 really is not too useful in some contexts. OK, I will try to add -O1, -O2 and -O3 to the table. Then I will search for biggest slowdowns in different files (hand-written/machine generated) and create bugreport for bugzilla. Thanks for all your suggestions, Karel -- Karel Gardas kgardas@objectsecurity.com ObjectSecurity Ltd. http://www.objectsecurity.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [UPDATED] GCC 3.4.0 20040114 + GCC 3.3.2 compile-time performance comparison on MICO project sources. 2004-01-19 19:43 GCC 3.4.0 20040114 + GCC 3.3.2 compile-time performance comparison on MICO project sources Karel Gardas 2004-01-19 19:49 ` Eric Christopher @ 2004-01-20 9:20 ` Karel Gardas 2004-01-20 9:48 ` Steven Bosscher 2004-01-20 11:31 ` Giovanni Bajo 1 sibling, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Karel Gardas @ 2004-01-20 9:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: GCC Mailing List On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Karel Gardas wrote: > > Hello, > > I have just build MICO 2.3.11's ORB core directory (http://www.mico.org) > with both compilers from subject with -time -O0 -Wall -DPIC -fPIC -c > options and the comparison table looks: > Here is updated table. I have added -O1, -O2, -O3 and -Os as per your kind request. The results are IMHO interesting, so please read small conclusion below. File 332-O0 340-0O Delta % 332-O1 340-O1 Delta % 332-O2 340-O2 Delta % 332-O3 340-O3 Delta % 332-Os 340-Os Delta % os-unix.cc 4.91 5.33 -7.88 5.16 5.57 -7.36 5.44 5.73 -5.06 5.38 5.79 -7.08 5.38 5.65 -4.78 dii.cc 17.45 18.58 -6.08 18.66 20.79 -10.25 21.03 23.09 -8.92 21.16 23.57 -10.22 20.94 23.12 -9.43 typecode.cc 10.2 10.51 -2.95 19.62 14.12 38.95 25.77 35.16 -26.71 25.98 36.2 -28.23 26.36 34.82 -24.3 any.cc 7.51 7.65 -1.83 10.86 10.72 1.31 13.72 13.8 -0.58 14 14.22 -1.55 13.61 13.44 1.26 codec.cc 6.57 6.68 -1.65 7.73 8.51 -9.17 9.32 10.25 -9.07 9.83 11.22 -12.39 9.11 9.77 -6.76 buffer.cc 4.13 3.94 4.82 4.29 4.26 0.7 4.43 4.36 1.61 4.46 4.53 -1.55 4.52 4.17 8.39 context.cc 4.22 4.15 1.69 4.58 4.56 0.44 4.95 4.77 3.77 5.02 5 0.4 4.83 4.69 2.99 except.cc 5.29 5.67 -6.7 5.69 6.32 -9.97 6.69 7.03 -4.84 6.86 7.57 -9.38 6.52 6.81 -4.26 dispatch.cc 5.23 5.62 -6.94 5.64 6.23 -9.47 5.9 6.19 -4.68 5.9 6.36 -7.23 5.92 6.16 -3.9 string.cc 4.09 3.95 3.54 4.21 4.21 0 4.29 4.07 5.41 4.39 4.25 3.29 4.31 4.08 5.64 object.cc 5.62 5.81 -3.27 6.74 6.69 0.75 7.5 7.92 -5.3 7.66 8.32 -7.93 7.35 7.75 -5.16 address.cc 5.73 6.05 -5.29 6.69 7.49 -10.68 7.41 8.06 -8.06 7.52 8.66 -13.16 7.4 7.98 -7.27 ior.cc 16.98 18.27 -7.06 18.63 20.84 -10.6 20.82 22.94 -9.24 21.17 23.61 -10.33 20.89 22.98 -9.09 orb.cc 22.46 23.08 -2.69 34.13 31.75 7.5 43.5 44.84 -2.99 43.93 47.87 -8.23 45.28 45.83 -1.2 boa.cc 10.32 10.98 -6.01 13.74 13.25 3.7 16.45 18.65 -11.8 16.72 19.51 -14.3 19.51 18.69 4.39 dsi.cc 14.83 16.01 -7.37 15.44 16.98 -9.07 16.43 18.49 -11.14 16.54 18.73 -11.69 16.31 18.46 -11.65 transport.cc 5.01 5.25 -4.57 5.05 5.66 -10.78 5.27 5.59 -5.72 5.25 5.69 -7.73 5.27 5.63 -6.39 t..port/tcp.cc 4.73 5.17 -8.51 5.1 5.42 -5.9 5.15 5.56 -7.37 5.34 5.67 -5.82 5.14 5.49 -6.38 t..port/udp.cc 4.73 5.24 -9.73 5.1 5.68 -10.21 5.5 5.84 -5.82 5.47 5.9 -7.29 5.41 5.75 -5.91 t..port/unix.cc 4.79 5.19 -7.71 4.92 5.51 -10.71 5.19 5.46 -4.95 5.19 5.49 -5.46 5.16 5.48 -5.84 iop.cc 20.54 22.42 -8.39 27.33 28.54 -4.24 33.2 35.09 -5.39 34.27 36.39 -5.83 33.07 34.63 -4.5 util.cc 6.5 7.02 -7.41 8.75 8.85 -1.13 10.33 11.44 -9.7 10.73 12.23 -12.26 10.32 11.18 -7.69 basic_seq.cc 4.34 4.32 0.46 4.53 4.65 -2.58 4.66 4.5 3.56 4.78 4.62 3.46 4.65 4.51 3.1 fast_array.cc 4.7 4.67 0.64 4.71 5.32 -11.47 4.81 4.71 2.12 4.94 5.4 -8.52 4.73 4.72 0.21 ssl.cc 13.66 15.15 -9.83 13.6 15.84 -14.14 13.66 15.06 -9.3 13.76 15.09 -8.81 13.95 15.01 -7.06 fixed.cc 4.43 4.34 2.07 4.61 4.75 -2.95 4.97 5.03 -1.19 5.22 6.02 -13.29 7.29 4.87 49.69 intercept.cc 14.66 15.75 -6.92 15.23 16.96 -10.2 16.14 17.73 -8.97 16.06 17.95 -10.53 16.19 17.52 -7.59 codeset.cc 6.44 6.91 -6.8 8.29 8.49 -2.36 10.6 12.01 -11.74 10.88 12.45 -12.61 10.6 11.76 -9.86 queue.cc 5.14 5.51 -6.72 5.48 5.96 -8.05 5.68 5.86 -3.07 5.72 6.11 -6.38 5.75 5.92 -2.87 static.cc 25.59 26.58 -3.72 32.66 32.03 1.97 33.05 36.93 -10.51 32.95 41.05 -19.73 32.77 36.37 -9.9 current.cc 13.19 14.84 -11.12 13.27 14.83 -10.52 13.29 14.41 -7.77 13.29 14.41 -7.77 13.32 14.56 -8.52 policy_impl.cc 17.3 18.8 -7.98 19.27 19.92 -3.26 20.98 24.54 -14.51 20.05 21.75 -7.82 22.34 21.21 5.33 service_info.cc 13.18 14.63 -9.91 13.22 14.61 -9.51 13.26 14.28 -7.14 13.14 14.33 -8.3 13.25 14.23 -6.89 ioptypes.cc 15.01 16.51 -9.09 16.73 18.01 -7.11 17.42 19.43 -10.34 17.8 19.6 -9.18 17.7 21.61 -18.09 ssliop.cc 13.45 14.74 -8.75 13.3 14.91 -10.8 13.56 14.62 -7.25 13.4 14.48 -7.46 13.6 14.55 -6.53 value.cc 15.72 16.66 -5.64 16.37 17.84 -8.24 17.34 18.31 -5.3 17.51 18.55 -5.61 20.03 18.29 9.51 valuetype.cc 14.31 15.88 -9.89 15.51 16.38 -5.31 15.47 16.79 -7.86 15.51 17.44 -11.07 15.6 16.79 -7.09 v..type_impl.cc 17.02 18.64 -8.69 18.67 22.16 -15.75 18.23 23.1 -21.08 18.17 20.07 -9.47 18.29 19.64 -6.87 dynany_impl.cc 11.02 11.74 -6.13 17.49 17.39 0.58 22.75 26.15 -13 26.14 27.06 -3.4 25.38 28.92 -12.24 policy2.cc 13.37 14.77 -9.48 13.36 15 -10.93 13.57 14.81 -8.37 13.77 14.79 -6.9 13.58 14.79 -8.18 tckind.cc 13.17 14.87 -11.43 13.18 14.58 -9.6 13.21 14.38 -8.14 13.05 14.38 -9.25 13.2 14.44 -8.59 orb_excepts.cc 13.26 14.89 -10.95 16.3 15.07 8.16 13.51 14.68 -7.97 13.46 14.65 -8.12 13.54 14.76 -8.27 policy.cc 13.29 14.52 -8.47 13.33 14.78 -9.81 13.55 14.61 -7.26 13.4 14.68 -8.72 13.55 14.55 -6.87 poa.cc 17.16 19.07 -10.02 19.89 24.37 -18.38 22.04 25.03 -11.95 22.23 24.2 -8.14 24.85 26.41 -5.91 poa_base.cc 14.43 15.95 -9.53 15.19 16.7 -9.04 16.08 18.16 -11.45 19.39 18.18 6.66 16.09 17.98 -10.51 poa_impl.cc 22.55 23.81 -5.29 31.34 28.09 11.57 32.68 37.47 -12.78 33.67 36.44 -7.6 36.05 35.23 2.33 dynany.cc 14.52 15.97 -9.08 15.09 16.65 -9.37 15.87 17.8 -10.84 16.04 17.88 -10.29 15.92 17.72 -10.16 uni_base64.cc 0.1 0.12 -16.67 0.16 0.2 -20 0.22 0.27 -18.52 0.23 0.27 -14.81 0.21 1.53 -86.27 uni_unicode.cc 0.17 0.21 -19.05 0.27 0.29 -6.9 0.39 0.45 -13.33 0.41 0.47 -12.77 0.35 1.19 -70.59 uni_fromuni.cc 0.35 0.41 -14.63 0.6 0.61 -1.64 0.98 1.09 -10.09 1.03 1.68 -38.69 1.03 1.16 -11.21 uni_touni.cc 0.38 0.47 -19.15 0.66 0.71 -7.04 1.03 1.19 -13.45 1.02 2.16 -52.78 0.98 1.23 -20.33 except2.cc 7.06 7.47 -5.49 10.23 11.13 -8.09 12.75 13.35 -4.49 13.2 14.06 -6.12 12.74 13.21 -3.56 pi.cc 15.61 17.53 -10.95 16.79 18.53 -9.39 18.23 19.46 -6.32 21.28 19.58 8.68 18.03 19.36 -6.87 pi_impl.cc 23.57 24.79 -4.92 32.09 31.69 1.26 36.58 39.06 -6.35 34.56 38.13 -9.36 36.92 39.85 -7.35 typecode_seq.cc 13.58 14.99 -9.41 13.87 15.27 -9.17 13.9 15.15 -8.25 14.45 15.28 -5.43 14.21 15.29 -7.06 timebase.cc 13.24 14.44 -8.31 13.26 14.71 -9.86 13.37 14.58 -8.3 16.5 14.51 13.71 13.41 14.47 -7.33 ir.cc 59.49 53.89 10.39 83.8 80.16 4.54 106.06 127.22 -16.63 111.32 126.58 -12.06 109.25 129.06 -15.35 ir_base.cc 16.19 17.64 -8.22 21.22 19.41 9.33 19.48 21.36 -8.8 20.07 21.54 -6.82 19.6 21.63 -9.39 imr.cc 19.07 23.93 -20.31 23.66 27.56 -14.15 28.03 31.53 -11.1 29.63 32.09 -7.67 28.2 31.99 -11.85 mtdebug.cc 4.6 4.61 -0.22 4.65 5.03 -7.55 7.37 4.55 61.98 4.78 4.65 2.8 4.62 4.54 1.76 Sum 696.16 742.59 -6.25 829.94 862.54 -3.78 923.06 1023.99 -9.86 945.58 1039.36 -9.02 944.38 1023.43 -7.72 as you can see, there are some interesting files in the table (as a regression I will mean slowdown by at least 15% as written on GCC website): Hand-written files: typecode.cc: 3.4.0 compiles it more than 38% faster at -O1, but more than 24 % slower at -O2, -O3 and -Os static.cc: regression at -O3 valuetype_impl.cc: regression at -O1 and -O2 uni_base64.cc: regression at all levels, it's very short file and it seems 3.4.0 is slower on startup uni_touni.cc: the same example like uni_base64.cc IDL compiler generated (machine generated) files: ir.cc: like typecode.cc, faster at -O0 and -O1, but regression at -O2, -O3 and -Os imr.cc: regression at -O0 and also nearly at -O1 poa.cc: regeression at -O1 Also as you can see, every build was slower with GCC 3.4.0 in comparison with GCC3.3.2. I would also like to post bugreport to bugzilla, but I don't know how to attach preprocessed file there. Is it possible to add them after clicking on ``Commit'' button? Should I copy whole email table there, or is link to gcc mailing list enough? (I'm afraid about table re-formating in html, I don't have experience with it under Mozilla) Thanks, Karel -- Karel Gardas kgardas@objectsecurity.com ObjectSecurity Ltd. http://www.objectsecurity.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [UPDATED] GCC 3.4.0 20040114 + GCC 3.3.2 compile-time performance comparison on MICO project sources. 2004-01-20 9:20 ` [UPDATED] " Karel Gardas @ 2004-01-20 9:48 ` Steven Bosscher 2004-01-20 9:52 ` Karel Gardas 2004-01-20 11:31 ` Giovanni Bajo 1 sibling, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Steven Bosscher @ 2004-01-20 9:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Karel Gardas, GCC Mailing List On Tuesday 20 January 2004 10:21, Karel Gardas wrote: > I would also like to post bugreport to bugzilla, but I don't know how to > attach preprocessed file there. Is it possible to add them after clicking > on ``Commit'' button? Should I copy whole email table there, or is link to > gcc mailing list enough? (I'm afraid about table re-formating in html, > I don't have experience with it under Mozilla) You can add attachments after commiting the bug. I suggest you add a tarball of the preprocessed sources. You don't have to put the whole table in the bug report. In fact, please don't :-) A link to the message in the archives is enough. Thanks, Gr. Steven ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [UPDATED] GCC 3.4.0 20040114 + GCC 3.3.2 compile-time performance comparison on MICO project sources. 2004-01-20 9:48 ` Steven Bosscher @ 2004-01-20 9:52 ` Karel Gardas 0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Karel Gardas @ 2004-01-20 9:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Steven Bosscher; +Cc: GCC Mailing List On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Steven Bosscher wrote: > On Tuesday 20 January 2004 10:21, Karel Gardas wrote: > > I would also like to post bugreport to bugzilla, but I don't know how to > > attach preprocessed file there. Is it possible to add them after clicking > > on ``Commit'' button? Should I copy whole email table there, or is link to > > gcc mailing list enough? (I'm afraid about table re-formating in html, > > I don't have experience with it under Mozilla) > > You can add attachments after commiting the bug. I suggest you add a > tarball of the preprocessed sources. ACK. > You don't have to put the whole table in the bug report. In fact, please > don't :-) A link to the message in the archives is enough. OK, I will do it, after testing tree-ssa for you. :-) Cheers, Karel -- Karel Gardas kgardas@objectsecurity.com ObjectSecurity Ltd. http://www.objectsecurity.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [UPDATED] GCC 3.4.0 20040114 + GCC 3.3.2 compile-time performance comparison on MICO project sources. 2004-01-20 9:20 ` [UPDATED] " Karel Gardas 2004-01-20 9:48 ` Steven Bosscher @ 2004-01-20 11:31 ` Giovanni Bajo 2004-01-20 11:52 ` Giovanni Bajo 2004-01-20 18:47 ` Bugreports from MICO compile-time testing submited [was: Re: [UPDATED] GCC 3.4.0 20040114 + GCC 3.3.2 compile-time performance comparison on MICO project sources.] Karel Gardas 1 sibling, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Giovanni Bajo @ 2004-01-20 11:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Karel Gardas, GCC Mailing List Karel Gardas wrote: > I would also like to post bugreport to bugzilla, but I don't know how > to attach preprocessed file there. Is it possible to add them after > clicking on ``Commit'' button? Yes. Please, create a new bug report for *each* different regression. It's easier for us to track and comment on them, since they're different bugs anyway. > Should I copy whole email table there, or is > link to gcc mailing list enough? (I'm afraid about table re-formating in html, > I don't have experience with it under Mozilla) For each bug, you can report the bugs that matter (and link to the mailing list as a base reference for the discussion). Thanks! Giovanni Bajo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [UPDATED] GCC 3.4.0 20040114 + GCC 3.3.2 compile-time performance comparison on MICO project sources. 2004-01-20 11:31 ` Giovanni Bajo @ 2004-01-20 11:52 ` Giovanni Bajo 2004-01-20 18:47 ` Bugreports from MICO compile-time testing submited [was: Re: [UPDATED] GCC 3.4.0 20040114 + GCC 3.3.2 compile-time performance comparison on MICO project sources.] Karel Gardas 1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Giovanni Bajo @ 2004-01-20 11:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Karel Gardas, GCC Mailing List Giovanni Bajo wrote: >> I would also like to post bugreport to bugzilla, but I don't know how >> to attach preprocessed file there. Is it possible to add them after >> clicking on ``Commit'' button? > > Yes. Please, create a new bug report for *each* different regression. > It's easier for us to track and comment on them, since they're > different bugs anyway. Sorry for being unclear here: for *each* different regression, I meant just the major ones, which you listed separately with a comment (8 testcases). You can then open another "mother" bugreport with the whole tarball. We'll take care of keeping the bug linked together. Giovanni Bajo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Bugreports from MICO compile-time testing submited [was: Re: [UPDATED] GCC 3.4.0 20040114 + GCC 3.3.2 compile-time performance comparison on MICO project sources.] 2004-01-20 11:31 ` Giovanni Bajo 2004-01-20 11:52 ` Giovanni Bajo @ 2004-01-20 18:47 ` Karel Gardas 1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Karel Gardas @ 2004-01-20 18:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Giovanni Bajo; +Cc: GCC Mailing List On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Giovanni Bajo wrote: > Karel Gardas wrote: > > > I would also like to post bugreport to bugzilla, but I don't know how > > to attach preprocessed file there. Is it possible to add them after > > clicking on ``Commit'' button? > > Yes. Please, create a new bug report for *each* different regression. It's > easier for us to track and comment on them, since they're different bugs > anyway. At the end I have just submited three general bugs: (13775, 13776, 13777). If you need you can submit new one after the code analysis and if there will be really different bugs. Also url to _all_ preprocessed sources are provided in bugreports. Cheers, Karel -- Karel Gardas kgardas@objectsecurity.com ObjectSecurity Ltd. http://www.objectsecurity.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-01-20 18:47 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2004-01-19 19:43 GCC 3.4.0 20040114 + GCC 3.3.2 compile-time performance comparison on MICO project sources Karel Gardas 2004-01-19 19:49 ` Eric Christopher 2004-01-19 19:53 ` Karel Gardas 2004-01-19 19:57 ` Eric Christopher 2004-01-19 20:01 ` Gerald Pfeifer 2004-01-19 20:06 ` Karel Gardas 2004-01-20 9:20 ` [UPDATED] " Karel Gardas 2004-01-20 9:48 ` Steven Bosscher 2004-01-20 9:52 ` Karel Gardas 2004-01-20 11:31 ` Giovanni Bajo 2004-01-20 11:52 ` Giovanni Bajo 2004-01-20 18:47 ` Bugreports from MICO compile-time testing submited [was: Re: [UPDATED] GCC 3.4.0 20040114 + GCC 3.3.2 compile-time performance comparison on MICO project sources.] Karel Gardas
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).