From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7248 invoked by alias); 15 Apr 2019 12:12:16 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 7237 invoked by uid 89); 15 Apr 2019 12:12:16 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=HX-Languages-Length:718, H*F:U*matz, H*f:sk:6528985, H*i:sk:6528985 X-HELO: mx1.suse.de Received: from mx2.suse.de (HELO mx1.suse.de) (195.135.220.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 12:12:15 +0000 Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id A32A0AD1A; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 12:12:13 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 12:12:00 -0000 From: Michael Matz To: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Martin_Li=A8ka?= cc: GCC Development , Jan Hubicka , Richard Biener , Martin Jambor Subject: Re: GCC 8 vs. GCC 9 speed and size comparison In-Reply-To: <65289853-0db4-4645-74b4-869443addf1a@suse.cz> Message-ID: References: <6f547f38-1751-c003-b5ae-52dae776d39a@suse.cz> <65289853-0db4-4645-74b4-869443addf1a@suse.cz> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LSU 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="-1609957120-403370516-1555330333=:8064" X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-04/txt/msg00145.txt.bz2 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. ---1609957120-403370516-1555330333=:8064 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-length: 680 Hi, On Mon, 15 Apr 2019, Martin Liška wrote: > There's a similar comparison that I did for the official openSUSE gcc > packages. gcc8 is built with PGO, while the gcc9 package is built in 2 > different configurations: PGO, LTO, PGO+LTO (LTO used for FE in stage4, > for generators in stage3 as well). > > Please take a look at attached statistics. It seems the C++ parser got quite a bit slower with gcc 9 :-( Most visible in the compile time for tramp-3d (24%) and kdecore.cc (18% slower with just PGO); it seems that the other .ii files are C-like enough to not trigger this behaviour, so it's probably something to do with templates and/or classes. Ciao, Michael. ---1609957120-403370516-1555330333=:8064--