This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug c++/14563] octave built under Cygwin very slow
- From: "paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 24 Mar 2004 16:38:45 -0000
- Subject: [Bug c++/14563] octave built under Cygwin very slow
- References: <20040312233606.14563.paulthomas2@wanadoo.fr>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Additional Comments From paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2004-03-24 16:38 -------
Subject: Re: octave built under Cygwin very slow
bangerth at dealii dot org wrote:
>------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-03-24 15:57 -------
>First, thanks for you efforts!
>
>The Unwind_SjLj_* functions have to do with exceptions. Danny, I CC:
>you because here's a cygwin question: is sjlj the default on windows,
>and are you aware of any significant changes in this area that could
>affect this?
>
>Paul&Ben: even if the problem is in this function, am I correct with
>my math that these functions only account for at most about 1/4 of
>the run-time? If that is the case, then they can't make up for a
>six-fold increase in run-time...
>
>W.
>
>
>
This is why I am questioning the calibration of the profiling - none of
the times add up. Is it reasonable that the faster of the two builds be
bumped up from 20 to 90s runtime with profiling? If so, should I expect
to see the total profile time add up to the original 20s? In fact, the
total that I can find in the profiling is about 12seconds, including
octave start-up. Even if the latter is negligible, I am missing 40% of
the unprofiled execution time and 80% or so of the wall-clock time.
Am I right in thinking that setting -fno-exceptions will suppress sjlj
if it is the default? Perhaps we should try that as an experiment?
Paul T
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14563