[Bug target/14563] new/delete much slower than malloc/free because of sjlj exceptions

[ken dot duda at gmail dot com]

--- Additional Comments From ken dot duda at gmail dot com  2004-11-14 
17:03 ---
Subject: Re:  new/delete much slower than malloc/free because of sjlj exceptions

Thanks, Paul.  Let me know if I can help in any way.  I appeneded the
output of "gcc -v".

   -Ken

===

Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-cygwin/3.3.3/specs
Configured with: /gcc/gcc-3.3.3-3/configure --verbose --prefix=/usr
--exec-prefix=/usr --sysconfdir=/etc --libdir=/usr/lib
--libexecdir=/usr/lib --mandir=/usr/share/man
--infodir=/usr/share/info
--enable-languages=c,ada,c++,d,f77,java,objc,pascal --enable-nls
--without-included-gettext --enable-libgcj --with-system-zlib
--enable-interpreter --enable-threads=posix --enable-java-gc=boehm
--enable-sjlj-exceptions --disable-version-specific-runtime-libs
--disable-win32-registry
Thread model: posix
gcc version 3.3.3 (cygwin special)



On 13 Nov 2004 11:03:05 -, paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> That's interesting
> 
> Using your test case:
> (i) gcc 3.2 20020927 ( prerelease) both versions take 0.62micro-sec/new
> (ii) gcc 3.1.1 (cygming special) I get 2.1 and 0.66micro-sec/new
> (iii) gcc 4.0.0 20041010 (experimental) I get 0.62 and 0.59micro-sec/new
> 
> This latter was a tad unexpected - I built in from a snapshot on one of the
> German mirror sites.  Does this imply that I have picked up Dwarf2 as a
> default?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14563

[Bug target/14563] new/delete much slower than malloc/free because of sjlj exceptions

[ken dot duda at gmail dot com]

--- Additional Comments From ken dot duda at gmail dot com  2004-11-14 
22:40 ---
Subject: Re:  new/delete much slower than malloc/free because of sjlj exceptions

> Did you miss the question?

Umm, apparently I did.. the only thing I see in the bug log that looks
like a question is this:

> Does this imply that I have picked up Dwarf2 as a default?

I don't know the answer.  The only thing I can say that might be
related is that there are assembly statements in my output like "call
__Unwind_SjLj_Register"; that (with the --enable-sjlj-exceptions) has
led me to believe I'm using SjLj exceptions.

Again, let me know if there's anything I can help with.

   -Ken



On 14 Nov 2004 18:04:07 -, paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> --- Additional Comments From paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr  2004-11-14 
> 18:04 ---
> Subject: Re:  new/delete much slower than malloc/free because
> of sjlj exceptions
> 
> 
> Ken,
> 
> Did you miss the question?
> 
> Paul
> 
>


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14563