[Bug tree-optimization/19445] 50 fold compile time increase between gcc-3,4 and gcc-4,0 on included code

[phil at fsel dot com]

--- Additional Comments From phil at fsel dot com  2005-01-17 11:06 ---
Subject: Re:  50 fold compile time increase between gcc-3,4 and gcc-4,0 on 
included code

On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 09:20:43PM -, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> If in the source I mark unhook as it does not throw anything, the compile 
> time goes back down to what 
> should be.

Indeed. And I can confirm that the tree-profiling branch doesn't show
the problem on the original source code either.

cheers, Phil


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19445

[Bug c++/19445] 50 fold compile time increase between gcc-3,4 and gcc-4,0 on included code

[phil at fsel dot com]

--- Additional Comments From phil at fsel dot com  2005-01-14 20:29 ---
Subject: Re:  50 fold compile time increase between gcc-3,4 and gcc-4,0 on 
included code

On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 05:02:48PM -, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Can you check with --disable-checking as checking is turned on by
> default on the mainline of 4.0.0.

Not as bad, but still pretty awful:

$ /scribble/phil/gcc/install/bin/g++ -v
Using built-in specs.
Configured with: ../gcc/configure --prefix=/scribble/phil/gcc/install
--disable-checking --enable-languages=c++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.0.0 20050114 (experimental)
$ time /scribble/phil/gcc/install/bin/g++ -O -c
list1.cpp

real0m1.758s
user0m1.677s
sys 0m0.035s
$ time gcc-3.4 -O -c list1.cpp

real0m0.101s
user0m0.069s
sys 0m0.009s

cheers, Phil


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19445

[Bug c++/19445] 50 fold compile time increase between gcc-3,4 and gcc-4,0 on included code

[phil at fsel dot com]

--- Additional Comments From phil at fsel dot com  2005-01-14 16:53 ---
Created an attachment (id=7959)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7959&action=view)
.ii file


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19445

[Bug c++/19445] New: 50 fold compile time increase between gcc-3,4 and gcc-4,0 on included code

[phil at fsel dot com]

$ time g++-snapshot -O -c list1.ii   

real0m3.617s
user0m3.515s
sys 0m0.043s
$ time g++-3.4 -O -c list1.ii

real0m0.068s
user0m0.028s
sys 0m0.007s
$ g++-snapshot -v
Using built-in specs.
Configured with: ../src/configure -v --enable-languages=c,c++,java,objc,ada
--prefix=/usr/lib/gcc-snapshot --enable-shared --with-system-zlib --enable-nls
--enable-threads=posix --without-included-gettext --disable-werror
--enable-__cxa_atexit --enable-libstdcxx-allocator=mt --enable-clocale=gnu
--enable-libstdcxx-debug --enable-java-gc=boehm --enable-java-awt=gtk 
i486-linux-gnu
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.0.0 20050110 (experimental)

$ cat list1.ii 
# 1 "list1.cpp"
# 1 ""
# 1 ""
# 1 "list1.cpp"
template class Pointer
{
  typedef Pointer point;
  T *ptr;
public:
  Pointer() : ptr(0) { }
  Pointer(T *x) : ptr(x) { if(ptr) ptr->inc(); }
  ~Pointer() { if(ptr) ptr->dec(); ptr=0; }
  T *operator->() const { return ptr; }
  T &operator*() const { return *ptr; }
  bool null() const { return ptr == 0; }

  void exchange(Pointer &x)
  { T *t = x.ptr; x.ptr = ptr; ptr = t; }
};


class ListNode
{
public:
  mutable int count;
  Pointer next;
  void unhook(Pointer *p)
  {
while(!(*p).null() && (*p)->count == 1)
{
  Pointer t;
  t.exchange((*p)->next);
  t.exchange(*p);
}
  }
public:
  ~ListNode()
  {
unhook(&next);
  }
  void inc() const
  { ++count; }
  void dec() const
  { if(--count <= 0) delete this; }
public:
  ListNode(const int &d)
: count(0), next()
  { }
};

void test(ListNode p)
{
  p.unhook(&p.next);
}

-- 
   Summary: 50 fold compile time increase between gcc-3,4 and gcc-
4,0 on included code
   Product: gcc
   Version: 4.0.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P2
 Component: c++
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: phil at fsel dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
 GCC build triplet: i486-linux-gnu
  GCC host triplet: i486-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i486-linux-gnu


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19445