compile time regressions (was: merging for 3.4)

[Jan Hubicka]

> On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Matt Austern wrote:
> > Are there good test cases for the 3.1 -> 3.3 compile time
> > regressions?  It would be interesting to study them and find out
> > just what has gotten slower.
> 
> PR 3083 (yes, that old) basically still applies, but has been superseded
> by PR 8361 (http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view&pr=8361).
Hmm, we are definitly having some problem here :)

$ gcc -O2 generate.ii 
In file included from dltypes.h:1617,
                 from dl.h:94,
                 from generate.C:8:
program.h: In function `std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream&, const
   TPROGRAM<T>&)':
program.h:147: warning: `TPROGRAM<T>::const_iterator' is implicitly a typename
program.h:147: warning: implicit typename is deprecated, please see the
   documentation for details
In file included from dl.h:98,
                 from generate.C:8:
depgraph.h: In member function `void COMPONENT_FACTORY::preprocessComponents()
   ':
depgraph.h:675: internal compiler error: in pop_binding, at cp/decl.c:1181
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See <URL:http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/bugs.html> for instructions.

Honza
> 
> > If the numbers people have been tossing around are real then these are
> > very serious regressions and we should consider slipping the schedule
> > rather than releasing a compiler with those sorts of performance
> > problems.
> 
> Here are some timings from that PR:
>   gcc-3.0.4/bin/g++    45.45 user
>   gcc-3.1.1/bin/g++    57.79 user  +27%
>   gcc-3.2.1/bin/g++    59.30 user  +30%
>   gcc-current/bin/g++  72.29 user  +59%
> 
> Devang asked me wrt. to number w/o optimization:
> 
>   On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Devang Patel wrote:
> > Is it possible to get numbers for compilations without optimization?
> 
> Now, that's quite interesting:
> 
> /sw/gcc-3.0.4/bin/g++
>        25.60 real        24.66 user         0.63 sys
> /sw/gcc-3.1.1/bin/g++
>        28.44 real        26.88 user         0.98 sys
> /sw/gcc-3.2.1/bin/g++
>        28.71 real        27.17 user         0.65 sys
> /sw/gcc-current/bin/g++
>        32.14 real        31.06 user         0.59 sys
> 
> That is, we are already quite bad (and regress) without optimization.
> 
> Gerald
> -- 
> Gerald "Jerry"   pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at   http://www.pfeifer.com/gerald/