http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27140
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
--- Comment #14 from jessieluv22 at gmail dot com 2009-08-14 16:27 ---
Created an attachment (id=18364)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18364&action=view)
Witha butterfil on a flower
It is a beautiful fly with colorful wings
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
--- Comment #10 from rspencer at x10sys dot com 2006-10-17 22:42 ---
This is still a problem with:
gcc (GCC) 4.1.1 20060525 (Red Hat 4.1.1-1)
Additionally, link times are much longer than with 3.4.6
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27140
--- Comment #11 from pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2006-10-17 22:44
---
Subject: Re: Compiling LLVM now takes nearly 5x as long with 4.1 as it did
with 4.0
> Additionally, link times are much longer than with 3.4.6
Link times are usually a binutils issue unless you are comparing
--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 22:57
---
How is the situation with 4.2 or 4.3?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #13 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-03 02:12
---
2008-05-08 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Remove struct aliasing which fixed some compile time, there were other patches
too like mem-ssa.
But it would be nice if we could get new compile time numbers here
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-13 16:30 ---
I bet it has nothing to do with those but instead PR 26830.
Just a quick question since you might know before I go looking into the source.
Does this source has a big switch and a couple of loops in it?
If it does t
--- Comment #3 from sabre at nondot dot org 2006-04-13 16:31 ---
Note: "(albeit 2 million source lines)" isn't right, it's only 79K LOC. :)
-Chris
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27140
--- Comment #4 from rspencer at x10sys dot com 2006-04-13 17:26 ---
Re: 2 million lines:
Yes, my apologies for the late night blunder. It is 2,231,753 bytes and 79,037
lines.
Re: large switch statements:
There are several switch statements, none of them large. The largest is about
200 l
--- Comment #5 from rspencer at x10sys dot com 2006-04-13 20:13 ---
Created an attachment (id=11260)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11260&action=view)
Timing results when using GCC 4.1.1
This attachment provides the -ftime-report output for the same compilation but
--- Comment #6 from rspencer at x10sys dot com 2006-04-13 20:30 ---
Created an attachment (id=11261)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11261&action=view)
Timing results with -fno-tree-salias
Andrew Pinskia suggested that I try -fno-tree-salias. This decreased
compilati
--- Comment #7 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-13 22:40 ---
Subject: Re: Compiling LLVM now takes nearly 5x as long with 4.1 as it did
with 4.0
On Apr 13, 2006, at 1:30 PM, rspencer at x10sys dot com wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #6 from rspencer at x10sys dot com 2006-04
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-17 10:16 ---
This may be fixed by Zdeneks optimization of phi argument rewrite and dominator
updating. Though I bet these are not appropriate for 4.1.1.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27140
--- Comment #9 from rspencer at x10sys dot com 2006-04-21 23:12 ---
Andrew Pinskia wanted me to mention that there are other source files in LLVM
that exhibit the slow down. The one I attached is the worst offender, but there
are others. Unfortunately, I don't remember which files and I
> Additionally, link times are much longer than with 3.4.6
Link times are usually a binutils issue unless you are comparing
with the same version of binutils.
-- Pinski
On Apr 13, 2006, at 1:30 PM, rspencer at x10sys dot com wrote:
--- Comment #6 from rspencer at x10sys dot com 2006-04-13
20:30 ---
Created an attachment (id=11261)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11261&action=view)
Timing results with -fno-tree-salias
Andrew P
16 matches
Mail list logo
