From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-74635-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 7203 invoked by alias); 19 May 2003 21:14:23 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 2935 invoked from network); 19 May 2003 21:12:45 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mailout04.sul.t-online.com) (194.25.134.18)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 May 2003 21:12:45 -0000
Received: from fwd05.sul.t-online.de 
	by mailout04.sul.t-online.com with smtp 
	id 19Hrvv-0006Ks-06; Mon, 19 May 2003 23:12:35 +0200
Received: from kolme (520028553724-0001@[80.138.160.53]) by fmrl05.sul.t-online.com
	with esmtp id 19Hrvj-0GpHYOC; Mon, 19 May 2003 23:12:23 +0200
Received: from goofy.hamnixda.de ([192.168.100.249] helo=goofy)
	by kolme with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 19Hrvf-0000Zq-00; Mon, 19 May 2003 23:12:19 +0200
Received: from richard (helo=localhost)
	by goofy with local-esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
	id 19Hrvh-0006YX-00; Mon, 19 May 2003 23:12:21 +0200
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 21:24:00 -0000
From: Richard Guenther <rguenth@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de>
To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>
cc: Richard Guenther <rguenth@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de>, 
    Matt Austern <austern@apple.com>,  <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Huge compile time & run time performance regression 3.3 -> HEAD
In-Reply-To: <m3fznaslb7.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0305192310560.464-100000@goofy>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Sender: 520028553724-0001@t-dialin.net
X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg01806.txt.bz2

On 19 May 2003, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:

> Richard Guenther <rguenth@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de> writes:
>
> | > Do you see any compile time regressions at -O0?
> | >
> | > (I'm asking for the obvious reason: trying to find out how much work we
> | > need to do in the front end as opposed to the back end.)
> |
> | After killing all forced inlining, I get almost the same timings from 3.3
> | and 3.4, namely 42.50 and 44.89 seconds.
> |
> | Slowdown comes from
> |
> | 3.3: name lookup           :   6.92 (17%) usr   0.90 (43%) sys   7.50
> | (18%) wall
> | 3.4: name lookup           :   9.06 (22%) usr   0.81 (39%) sys  10.29
> | (23%) wall
>
> I've also noticed that name lookup time has increased from 3.3 to 3.4,
> probably mostly because now we're doing things more correctly and
> partly because we didn't really take care to optimize it.  It would be
> interesting if you could report numbers for name lookup for 3.4:
>
>   * before I applied the name lookup
>   * after I applied it (i.e. cvs as of this moment)

With g++ (GCC) 3.4 20030505 (experimental) I get a total time of 46.37 and

 name lookup           :   9.42 (23%) usr   0.93 (40%) sys  10.20 (22%)
wall

Richard.