Re: Speed regression from 3.2 to 3.3

[Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>]

> On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 03:44:40PM -0800, Matt Austern wrote:
> > 
> > I find the gc regression to be particularly interesting.  First, note 
> > that
> > this can't be accounted for by the bug that Geoff fixed.  Even if it
> > applied to this test case, which it doesn't, Geoff fixed it in the 3.3
> > release branch a week ago.   So what can the gc regression mean?
> > Logically, I can only think of two possibilities: either the gc 
> > algorithm
> > suddenly got worse, or else the gc is now working on twice as much
> > memory as it used to.  Both possibilities are a bit hard to believe, but
> > the second strikes me as far more plausible than the first.
> > 
> 
> You could try to reverse gc changes to its 3.2 version and look wether 
> time spent in gc decreases or not...

This is quite dificult to do as large parts of PCH branch has been
merged to 3.3.  Can you just take a look at 3.2 time and mem reports and
looks what has changed to have something to start with?

Honza