Just a reminder of serious open 3.3 PRs

[Jan Hubicka]

> Hi,
> 
> These are unassigned, poorly analyzed regressions.  All PRs I
> mention here are still present on the mainline, so even if you don't
> care much about 3.3, you still may want to have a look at these PRs ;-)
> 
> 
> The two three are serious compile time regressions from 3.2 that should
> be show stoppers for 3.3 according to the GCC release criteria.  .
> 
> opt/8361	[3.3/3.4 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression
> This is a 70% slowdown wrt. 3.0.4, and 30% wrt. 3.2.1.  It was blamed
> on garbage collection and other things, but no real analysis was done
> for this problem.  The "official" rule from the release criteria
> states that "A release candidate's compile-time should not exceed
> GCC 2.95.3 by more than 15% ..."  Here we have two times the maximum
> slowdown with respect to the latest official release.
> BTW This is Gerald's PR that tracks g++ slowdown, ref.
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-04/msg01168.html (but read "3.3" for "3.2"
> in the table, and keep in mind that 3.3 only slowed down *more* since
> these timings were done).
> 
> opt/10196	[3.3/3.4 regression] Compile time regression with inlining
> This is a >1000% slowdown (i.e. more than 10 times the compile time!)
> wrt. 3.2.3.  The slowdown is in expand, jump, and cfg cleanup, and was
> reported for POOMA.  Quote from the release criteria says it all:
> "POOMA is a complex expression-template library that will tax the ability
> of G++ to deal with templates, an area that has historically been buggy.
> In addition, templates have historically taken inordinately much time and
> memory at compile-time. With the widespread prevalence of templates in C++
> programs, including the standard library, testing this area heavily is
> vitally important."
> 
> 
> Two other PRs I'd like to bring to your attention are these two wrong-code
> bugs:
> 
> java/8866	[3.3/3.4 regression] Bug in switch statement code generation -- missing label
> Here a complete jump table for a switch statement is being blown away.
> Graham Scott said he was working on a fix, but two months have passed
> and the bug is still there.  The result of problem is clear, but the
> cause has not been analysed yet.
> 
> opt/8634	[3.2/3.3/3.4 regression] incorrect code for inlining of memcpy under -O2
> memcpy a char* buffer, then compare the original to the copy: Not the same?!
> Not much analysis, and a rejected workaround patch.

Zdenek needs to choose better subject next time...
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-02/msg01655.html

There is also target/9929 that is quite serious.  Hope we will converge
to something soon.

Honza
> 
> 
> Most other 35 open high-priority PRs are target specific regressions
> (probably still present on the mainline as well) or less serious issues
> such as ICEs on illegal code or legal but really arcane code (stuff like
> inline-asm).  3.3 is IMHO really looking good now, except for these PRs
> I mentioned.
> 
> Greetz
> Steven
> 
>