--- 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
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2004-09-02 11:05:08 |2005-02-01 00:21:16
date|
--- 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
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17278
--- 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
--- 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
--- 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
--- 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
--- 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
--- 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
--- 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
--- 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
--- 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
--- 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
14 matches
Mail list logo