https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=127203

            Bug ID: 127203
           Summary: [17 Regression] ~30% slowdown of a testcase from
                    pr26854 since r17-3264-g6cda72b8bd646c
           Product: gcc
           Version: 17.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Keywords: compile-time-hog
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: tree-optimization
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
                CC: aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
  Target Milestone: ---
              Host: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
            Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu

Created attachment 65491
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=65491&action=edit
the testcase

Since r17-3264-g6cda72b8bd646c, I see ~30% compilation time slowdown on the
attached testcase (originally a testcase for pr26854).

[fkastl@ryzen4 playground]$ binaries/release-6cda72b8bd646c/bin/gcc pr26854-2.c
-O1 -g -ftime-report -c
...
 TOTAL                              :   8.84          314M


[fkastl@ryzen4 playground]$ binaries/release-before-6cda72b8bd646c/bin/gcc
pr26854-2.c -O1 -g -ftime-report -c
...
 TOTAL                              :   6.65          295M

Interesting parts of the time report are:

Time variable             wall before  after; mem before after; wall difference
phase opt and generate          5.89    8.01    233M    252M    2.12
callgraph functions expansion   5.15    7.09    141M    150M    1.94
callgraph ipa passes            0.65    0.82    27M     36M     0.17
ipa function summary            0.06    0.13    3830k   7065k   0.07
dominator optimization          0.97    2.57    21M     22M     1.6
tree copy headers               0.01    0.2     377k    2338k   0.19
access analysis                 0.04    0.14    233k    5454k   0.1

As far as I know, there is no time variable specific to ranger.  It seems
probable to me that we are seeing additional ranger computations being
accounted under various time variables.

Aldy, could you look at this?  If it seems ok to you, just close the bug as
WON'T FIX.  I don't know if this indicates some problem or not but I thought
you might know.

Reply via email to