https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113175
Xi Ruoyao <xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao <xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #3)
> There's one single regression event, bringing the host runtime to about 1.63
> seconds. Then some time later, an additional 0.1 second was added
> (accumulated).
> I did not look into that latter regression. The big one is clouded by a
> large range of commits where max_size_type failed, due to
> r14-159-g03cebd304955a6.
> This was fixed in r14-205-g83470a5cd4c3d2, at which time there the big
> regression is seen for the first time. That is also the "cause" for the
> commit, because applying that commit to r14-158-g7d115e01411156 shows the
> same number as for r14-205-g83470a5cd4c3d2.
>
> Actually, it's the testsuite part of that patch, because with that reverted
> the execution time backs down to 0.33 seconds. IOW, this while PR is
> /testsuites. Not sure what to do to improve the execution time, as plain
> disabling the using "signed_rep_t = __int128;" by making the first line
> "+#if 0 && __SIZEOF_INT128__" yields
> /x/testsuite/std/ranges/iota/max_size_type.cc:36: note: the comparison
> reduces to '(16 == 8)'
>
> Maybe the higher number for the execution time is actually the "right" one
> and the range should be cut down to -100..100 for *all* targets?
>
> HNY!
IIRC the "signed_rep_t = __int128;" case has really detected a compiler bug, so
IMO we shouldn't just disable it.
Maybe my memory is flawed though.
