This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C++ compile-time regressions
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, Daniel Berlin <dan at cgsoftware dot com>
- Subject: Re: C++ compile-time regressions
- From: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>
- Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 16:52:44 +0200 (CEST)
- cc: <aoliva at redhat dot com>, Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> I think we're tackling this from the wrong angle. GCC uses about
> 3 to 4 times as much memory as it needs to, really, and our garbage
> collector touches too many pages.
Well, I think we need to tackle it from several angles. :-) Right now,
both compile-time and run-time performance are worse than GCC 2.95 (even
if we tune for either one).
> I know how to fix these problems, I think, and I expect to start
> working on them soonish.
That's excellent news, thanks!
> Anyhow, I guess I think we've done enough for now.
Daniel seems to have a promising patch, (a first draft of) which seems
very non-invasive and simple; this might be an excellent candidate for
On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> BTW, i've gotten the performance problem down using a slightly
> modified heuristic from integrate.c. On the last run, the compile
> times were about the same as 200 insns, but the performance was *much*
> better (we're down to about 10% speed loss).
> When your performance gets shot to hell, it's always being caused by
> not inlining things. I.E. at 100 insns, *::begin and *::end are taking
> >50% of the runtime, because they aren't being inlined.
I guessed that something extremely bad like this was going on, because
performance was getting *that* bad.
Good to see both issues (compile-time and run-time performance) being
Gerald "Jerry" email@example.com http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/~pfeifer/