https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111600
--- Comment #22 from Robin Dapp <rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Ah, then it's not that different, your machine is just faster ;)
callgraph ipa passes : 69.77 ( 11%) 5.97 ( 13%) 76.05 ( 12%)
2409M ( 10%)
integration : 91.95 ( 15%) 12.52 ( 27%) 105.93 ( 16%)
13408M ( 56%)
tree CFG cleanup : 76.98 ( 13%) 1.09 ( 2%) 78.01 ( 12%)
201M ( 1%)
tree STMT verifier : 66.62 ( 11%) 3.75 ( 8%) 68.31 ( 10%)
0 ( 0%)
integrated RA : 47.04 ( 8%) 1.00 ( 2%) 47.79 ( 7%)
879M ( 4%)
tree CCP : 44.31 ( 7%) 3.00 ( 6%) 48.39 ( 7%)
314M ( 1%)
tree SSA verifier : 31.40 ( 5%) 1.60 ( 3%) 32.25 ( 5%)
0 ( 0%)
CFG verifier : 14.93 ( 2%) 0.74 ( 2%) 16.53 ( 3%)
0 ( 0%)
callgraph verifier : 14.26 ( 2%) 1.07 ( 2%) 15.55 ( 2%)
0 ( 0%)
tree operand scan : 12.58 ( 2%) 3.73 ( 8%) 15.14 ( 2%)
1649M ( 7%)
verify RTL sharing : 11.70 ( 2%) 0.89 ( 2%) 13.31 ( 2%)
0 ( 0%)
TOTAL : 609.73 46.53 659.45
24127M
FWIW we are much faster with -fno-inline (somewhat expected but I didn't expect
a factor of 3):
callgraph ipa passes : 53.47 ( 27%) 5.84 ( 26%) 59.52 ( 26%)
2231M ( 26%)
tree STMT verifier : 19.67 ( 10%) 1.95 ( 9%) 21.47 ( 10%)
0 ( 0%)
tree SSA verifier : 11.80 ( 6%) 1.20 ( 5%) 13.32 ( 6%)
0 ( 0%)
integrated RA : 8.73 ( 4%) 0.72 ( 3%) 9.83 ( 4%)
898M ( 10%)
verify RTL sharing : 7.90 ( 4%) 0.69 ( 3%) 8.49 ( 4%)
0 ( 0%)
scheduling 2 : 7.32 ( 4%) 0.31 ( 1%) 7.90 ( 4%)
43M ( 1%)
tree PTA : 6.68 ( 3%) 0.69 ( 3%) 7.51 ( 3%)
71M ( 1%)
CFG verifier : 6.67 ( 3%) 0.81 ( 4%) 7.29 ( 3%)
0 ( 0%)
rest of compilation : 6.42 ( 3%) 0.93 ( 4%) 6.88 ( 3%)
89M ( 1%)
parser function body : 6.35 ( 3%) 2.13 ( 9%) 8.40 ( 4%)
903M ( 11%)
TOTAL : 201.12 22.90 225.17
8575M
