[Bug tree-optimization/8361] [4.1/4.2 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
--- Comment #70 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-03 10:39 --- Based on my numbers of comment #69, I'm declaring this fixed once more. -- steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
[Bug tree-optimization/8361] [4.1/4.2 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
--- Comment #69 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-25 22:35 --- Re. comment #68, I should have added that all compilers were built with "gcc (GCC) 4.0.2 20050901 (prerelease) (SUSE Linux)" with CFLAGS="-O2 -g". -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
[Bug tree-optimization/8361] [4.1/4.2 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
--- Comment #68 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-25 22:31 --- New timings. These were taken on the same box as those of comment #62 and comment #64 (Intel x86_64 3.20GHz, 1GB ram). Times are usr times Invokation: time g++ -S -fpermissive -Ox -m64 generate-3.4.ii GC params for cc1plus: --param ggc-min-expand=98 --param ggc-min-heapsize=127550 version ID -O2 -O3 GCC 3.4 3.4.6 0m23.673s 0m24.362s GCC 4.0 4.0.4 20060725 0m23.009s 0m23.849s GCC 4.1 4.1.2 20060725 0m24.018s 0m25.294s GCC 4.2 4.2.0 20060724 0m25.214s 0m26.242s -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
[Bug tree-optimization/8361] [4.1/4.2 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
--- Comment #67 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 09:06 --- Does anyone have new numbers for this, Richard G.'s recent memory patches have an effect on the compile time also I noticed between 7% and 10% on at least CSiBE. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
[Bug tree-optimization/8361] [4.1/4.2 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
--- Comment #66 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-25 02:31 --- 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=8361
[Bug tree-optimization/8361] [4.1/4.2 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
--- Comment #65 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|4.1.0 |4.1.1 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
[Bug tree-optimization/8361] [4.1/4.2 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
--- Comment #64 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-12 01:17 --- DONT_PROPAGATE_WITH_ANYTHING only exists on the trunk. With that flag, the timings are: Flags: -O2 GCC 4.2 (trunk today): real0m31.704s user0m31.094s sys 0m0.584s Flags: -O3 GCC 4.2 (trunk today): real0m36.206s user0m35.718s sys 0m0.484s So, no it doesn't help. Again, the problem seems to be more that we just run so many passes, not that one or two specific passes are to blame for most of the compile time. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
[Bug tree-optimization/8361] [4.1/4.2 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
--- Comment #63 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-11 16:02 --- Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression > Flags: -O3 > > GCC 4.0 (release branch today): > real0m24.412s 0m25.000s 0m24.771s > user0m23.921s 0m24.430s 0m24.210s > sys 0m0.368s0m0.408s0m0.420s > > GCC 4.1 (release branch today): > real0m33.260s 0m33.140s 0m33.188s > user0m32.602s 0m32.522s 0m32.554s > sys 0m0.556s0m0.544s0m0.600s > > GCC 4.2 (trunk today): > real0m36.544s 0m36.614s 0m36.492s > user0m35.950s 0m35.942s 0m35.994s > sys 0m0.544s0m0.600s0m0.464s > > > Significant compile time sinks in GCC 4.1 that don't appear in GCC 4.0: > tree PTA : 2.31 ( 7%) usr > tree SSA incremental : 2.14 ( 6%) usr > expand: 1.71 ( 5%) usr > So, could you do me a favor if you get a chance, and change the macro DONT_PROPAGATE_WITH_ANYTHING to 1 in tree-ssa-structalias.c, and see if it speeds it up at all? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
Re: [Bug tree-optimization/8361] [4.1/4.2 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
> Flags: -O3 > > GCC 4.0 (release branch today): > real0m24.412s 0m25.000s 0m24.771s > user0m23.921s 0m24.430s 0m24.210s > sys 0m0.368s0m0.408s0m0.420s > > GCC 4.1 (release branch today): > real0m33.260s 0m33.140s 0m33.188s > user0m32.602s 0m32.522s 0m32.554s > sys 0m0.556s0m0.544s0m0.600s > > GCC 4.2 (trunk today): > real0m36.544s 0m36.614s 0m36.492s > user0m35.950s 0m35.942s 0m35.994s > sys 0m0.544s0m0.600s0m0.464s > > > Significant compile time sinks in GCC 4.1 that don't appear in GCC 4.0: > tree PTA : 2.31 ( 7%) usr > tree SSA incremental : 2.14 ( 6%) usr > expand: 1.71 ( 5%) usr > So, could you do me a favor if you get a chance, and change the macro DONT_PROPAGATE_WITH_ANYTHING to 1 in tree-ssa-structalias.c, and see if it speeds it up at all?
[Bug tree-optimization/8361] [4.1/4.2 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
--- Comment #62 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-11 15:46 --- Compile times for generate-3.4.ii All compilers bootstrapped, with checking disabled. Flags: -O2 GCC 4.0 (release branch today): real0m22.795s 0m22.727s 0m22.760s user0m22.481s 0m22.297s 0m22.357s sys 0m0.316s0m0.412s0m0.404s GCC 4.1 (release branch today): real0m29.888s 0m28.450s 0m28.420s user0m28.154s 0m27.906s 0m27.894s sys 0m0.496s0m0.544s0m0.524s GCC 4.2 (trunk today): real0m33.715s 0m31.524s 0m31.483s user0m31.466s 0m31.034s 0m31.022s sys 0m0.424s0m0.492s0m0.460s Flags: -O3 GCC 4.0 (release branch today): real0m24.412s 0m25.000s 0m24.771s user0m23.921s 0m24.430s 0m24.210s sys 0m0.368s0m0.408s0m0.420s GCC 4.1 (release branch today): real0m33.260s 0m33.140s 0m33.188s user0m32.602s 0m32.522s 0m32.554s sys 0m0.556s0m0.544s0m0.600s GCC 4.2 (trunk today): real0m36.544s 0m36.614s 0m36.492s user0m35.950s 0m35.942s 0m35.994s sys 0m0.544s0m0.600s0m0.464s Significant compile time sinks in GCC 4.1 that don't appear in GCC 4.0: tree PTA : 2.31 ( 7%) usr tree SSA incremental : 2.14 ( 6%) usr expand: 1.71 ( 5%) usr The same passes cost the most time in GCC 4.2. The expand cost has increades. The other two are not new, they just run very often or didn't have their own time vars before. The overall problem seems to be that we just run too many passes too often, nothing really stands out. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8361
