Re: 3.3 compile time regression (22400%)

[Richard Guenther <rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de>]

On Sun, 23 Mar 2003, Richard Guenther wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Mar 2003, Janis Johnson wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Mar 22, 2003 at 02:39:43PM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > > Hi Janis, Richard,
> > >
> > > This is a regression but somehow there is no PR for it, and no test
> > > case.  Isn't being able to compile POOMA a release requirement?
> > >
> > > Richard, can you open a PR for this issue and put that multi-megabyte
> > > test case up for download somewhere?  If you don't have a public space
> > > for your test case, then I can make some of my own available for you.
> > >
> > > Janis, when the test case is there, do you have the cycles to track this
> > > one down to the breaking patch somehow?
> >
> > Yes, I can do that.
> >
> > Richard Guenther, if you can tell me explicitly how to set things up
> > using an existing POOMA tarball then I can do that instead of getting
> > the giant preprocessed source file (this is a one-time offer).  I've
> > got the tarball that is referenced in
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/testing/testing-pooma.html.
>
> I dont know if the tarball produces the same failure (I'm using current
> CVS), but I can easily (tomorrow morning) construct two testcases that
> show excessive expand time compared to 3.2 and put both online for
> download (and open a PR for them).

This is optimization/10196 now, and I have linked the testcase from POOMA
from it
(http://www.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de/~rguenth/DynamicLayout2.cmpl.ii.gz).
This is the testcase with the most serious regression in compilation speed
from the pooma library (all other files regress, too, but not that much).
Its rather large, sorry about that.

If you need more information, please tell me.

Richard.