This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: 3.3 compile time regression (22400%)
- From: Richard Guenther <rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de>
- To: Janis Johnson <janis187 at us dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: Steven Bosscher <s dot bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>, <richard dot guenther at uni-tuebingen dot de>, <mark at codesourcery dot com>, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 20:01:02 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: Re: 3.3 compile time regression (22400%)
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).
Richard.