[Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

2005-01-31 Thread steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-01 00:22 --- I have no further ideas for speedups for this bug... -- What|Removed |Added Assigned

[Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

2005-01-31 Thread steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW Last reconfirmed|2004-09-02 11:05:08 |2005-02-01 00:21:16 date|

[Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

2005-01-31 Thread kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
--- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2005-01-31 09:00 --- Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level Hello, new timings are here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-01/msg01714.html Actually

[Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

2005-01-30 Thread steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278

[Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

2005-01-27 Thread steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-27 16:40 --- Partially fixed at least. Karel, new timings? (This one will probably still be a bit slower, but hopefully we've gained a bit again...) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278

[Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

2005-01-27 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-27 16:33 --- Subject: Bug 17278 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-27 16:32:16 Modified files: gcc: ChangeLog opts.c tree-ssa-dom.c Log

[Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

2005-01-27 Thread steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-27 15:55 --- http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-01/msg02033.html -- What|Removed |Added Key

[Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

2005-01-21 Thread steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-21 10:57 --- Created an attachment (id=8029) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8029&action=view) Disable some expensive passes at -O1 I'm running a SPECint comparison between GCC-hammer-branch and mainl

[Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

2005-01-20 Thread steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-21 00:24 --- Mark, typecode.ii ;-) So it is preprocessed. That doesn't mean it's smaller though, the preprocessed larger library is still a larger library. Anyway, the problem here is more that compared to gcc 3.x

[Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

2005-01-20 Thread mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-20 22:58 --- Does this 8% regression apply to preprocessed source, or only to unpreprocessed source? If the latter, then this PR should be closed as WONTFIX; the runtime library has gotten bigger, and that makes things

[Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

2004-12-28 Thread kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
--- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2004-12-28 22:42 --- Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level On Tue, 28 Dec 2004, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Dec 2004, pins

[Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

2004-12-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-28 22:40 --- (In reply to comment #18) > Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time > regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level > > > On Tue, 28 Dec 2004, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wro

[Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

2004-12-28 Thread kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
--- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2004-12-28 22:39 --- Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level On Tue, 28 Dec 2004, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > Now only 8%. True for typ

[Bug middle-end/17278] [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level

2004-12-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-28 22:33 --- Now only 8%. -- What|Removed |Added Component|c++ |middle-e