[Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] ~50% compile time regression
--- Comment #35 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-03 17:28 --- Even if we did not hash SCEV data a lot, it would not buy you >50%. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18687
[Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] ~50% compile time regression
--- Comment #34 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-03 13:22 --- FYI, the profile (-O2) looks like Flat profile: Each sample counts as 0.01 seconds. % cumulative self self total time seconds secondscalls s/call s/call name 2.04 0.62 0.62 5210670 0.00 0.00 htab_find_slot_with_hash 2.01 1.23 0.61 135824 0.00 0.00 find_reloads 1.78 1.77 0.54 1181450 0.00 0.00 constrain_operands 1.71 2.29 0.52 1667653 0.00 0.00 walk_tree 1.64 2.79 0.50 113076 0.00 0.00 record_reg_classes 1.18 3.15 0.36 1374013 0.00 0.00 for_each_rtx_1 1.15 3.50 0.35 2188275 0.00 0.00 iterative_hash_expr 1.02 3.81 0.31 13803214 0.00 0.00 bitmap_bit_p 0.99 4.11 0.30 146294 0.00 0.00 reload_cse_simplify_operands 0.92 4.39 0.28 8238693 0.00 0.00 bitmap_set_bit 0.89 4.66 0.27 13524760 0.00 0.00 is_gimple_min_invariant 0.85 4.92 0.26 1944894 0.00 0.00 extract_insn 0.76 5.15 0.23 3242786 0.00 0.00 note_stores 0.76 5.38 0.23 1848575 0.00 0.00 mark_set_1 0.76 5.61 0.23 1073359 0.00 0.00 fold_binary 0.69 5.82 0.21 3530376 0.00 0.00 ix86_decompose_address 0.66 6.02 0.20 2801807 0.00 0.00 is_gimple_reg 0.66 6.22 0.20 101 0.00 0.02 reload 0.62 6.41 0.19 6596295 0.00 0.00 find_reg_note 0.62 6.60 0.19 3748843 0.00 0.00 ggc_alloc_stat 0.62 6.79 0.19 1543768 0.00 0.00 force_fit_type 0.59 6.97 0.18 5160059 0.00 0.00 pool_alloc 0.59 7.15 0.18 937999 0.00 0.00 make_node_stat 0.59 7.33 0.18 1915 0.00 0.00 cleanup_cfg 0.56 7.50 0.17 2132681 0.00 0.00 mark_all_vars_used_1 0.56 7.67 0.17 1015399 0.00 0.00 get_expr_operands 0.56 7.84 0.17 263419 0.00 0.00 cse_insn 0.53 8.00 0.16 2162651 0.00 0.00 cselib_lookup 0.53 8.16 0.16 1176845 0.00 0.00 mark_used_regs 0.53 8.32 0.16 101 0.00 0.01 reload_as_needed 0.49 8.47 0.15 1748131 0.00 0.00 operand_equal_p 0.49 8.62 0.15 1160005 0.00 0.00 propagate_one_insn 0.49 8.77 0.15 1086424 0.00 0.00 et_splay 0.49 8.92 0.15 1030222 0.00 0.00 rtx_cost 0.49 9.07 0.15 523805 0.00 0.00 count_reg_usage 0.46 9.21 0.14 3222872 0.00 0.00 memory_operand 0.46 9.35 0.14 1651283 0.00 0.00 htab_find_with_hash 0.46 9.49 0.14 693604 0.00 0.00 rewrite_update_stmt 0.46 9.63 0.14 457856 0.00 0.00 mul_double we're hashing SCEV data a lot: 0.010.07 285600/2683522 set_instantiated_value [395] 0.010.09 398929/2683522 build_int_cst_wide [214] 0.020.20 864500/2683522 find_var_scev_info [184] [68] 2.30.060.63 2683522 htab_find_slot [68] 0.340.16 2683522/11019933 htab_find_slot_with_hash [53] 0.030.00 1150100/1603800 hash_scev_info [589] 0.060.03 125694/1181450 reload_cse_simplify_operands [94] 0.090.05 201473/1181450 find_matches [200] 0.320.16 698486/1181450 extract_constrain_insn_cached [67] [61] 2.70.540.28 1181450+14400 constrain_operands [61] 0.010.15 806498/873917 strict_memory_address_p [236] 0.050.00 272106/402044 operands_match_p [415] 0.050.04 100911/1588625 create_ssa_var_map [329] 0.070.06 144529/1588625 walk_tree_without_duplicates [268] 0.140.13 292781/1588625 count_uses_and_derefs [149] 0.210.20 450984/1588625 remove_unused_locals [111] [44] 3.90.520.68 1667653+3246362 walk_tree [44] 0.060.18 337362/337362 find_used_portions [189] 0.080.12 1659486/1659486 pointer_set_insert [209] 0.000.06 97327/97327 scan_for_refs [487] 0.050.00 1267779/1267779 count_ptr_derefs [525] 0.010.56 143418/143418 regclass [71] [80] 1.90.010.56 143418 scan_one_insn [80] 0.500.04 113076/113076 record_reg_classes [85] 0.010.01 100486/1944894 extract_insn [121] 0.000.07 209960/1775362 x86_extended_reg_mentioned_p [364] 0.020.26 747868/1775362 approx
[Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] ~50% compile time regression
--- Comment #33 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-03 11:41 --- FWIW, the oprofile for both test cases is basically flat, nothing stands out. We just do _so_ much more work (many more passes without removing anything) and that hurts apparently (not surprising of course). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18687
[Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] ~50% compile time regression
--- Comment #32 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-03 11:37 --- Just to be sure that between 7/24 and today we didn't speed up significantly: "real" times for hashes100.c (x86_64-linux, Intel Xeon 3.2 GHz, 1GB RAM): 3.4.6 4.2-svn20060903delta -O0 0m1.618s 0m1.634s +1% -O1 0m2.743s 0m5.175s +88% -O2 0m4.686s 0m7.719s +65% "real" times for infcodes100.c: 3.44.2-svn20060903delta -O0 0m3.040s 0m3.526s +16% -O1 0m4.989s 0m8.871s +77% -O2 0m8.375s 0m13.334s +59% Given these numbers, I would stick with gcc3 if I were a kernel developer. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18687
[Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] ~50% compile time regression
--- Comment #31 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-03 11:05 --- "real" times for hashes100.c (x86_64-linux, Intel Xeon 3.2 GHz, 1GB RAM): 3.4.6 4.0.4 4.1.2 4.2-svn20060724 -O0 0m1.618s 0m1.762s 0m1.661s 0m1.645s -O1 0m2.743s 0m4.646s 0m4.984s 0m4.936s -O2 0m4.686s 0m6.814s 0m7.140s 0m7.603s "real" times for infcodes100.c: 3.4.6 4.0.4 4.1.2 4.2-svn20060724 -O0 0m3.040s 0m3.643s 0m3.555s 0m3.575s -O1 0m4.989s 0m7.694s 0m8.809s 0m8.943s -O2 0m8.375s 0m10.622s 0m12.136s 0m13.285s -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18687
[Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] ~50% compile time regression
--- Comment #30 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 09:14 --- Can you do timings on these again on the mainline since it looks like Richard G.'s memory patches also improved compile time for C at least on the CSiBE benchmark. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18687
[Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] ~50% compile time regression
--- Comment #29 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-25 02:32 --- Will not be fixed in 4.1.1; adjust target milestone to 4.1.2. -- mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|4.1.1 |4.1.2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18687
[Bug tree-optimization/18687] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] ~50% compile time regression
--- Comment #28 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-24 00:25 --- This issue will not be resolved in GCC 4.1.0; retargeted at GCC 4.1.1. -- mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|4.0.3 |4.1.1 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18687
