This is now in bugzilla as:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28871
-benjamin
I'm starting a bootstrap timing comparison to find if this is a red
herring. I'll get the results next morning.
Hm, nope:
$ gcc_test --base-gcc-branch=HEAD:r116077 --peak-gcc-branch=HEAD:r116080
...
Bootstrapping base compiler took 13999 secs
...
Bootstrapping peak compiler took 13993 secs
Diego Novillo wrote:
Benjamin Kosnik wrote on 08/22/06 07:56:
Hey y'all. I'm just getting back from vacation and as I re-build my
testing baselines, I've noticed a huge compilation time regression.
This happened sometime post Aug 1, 2006. Anybody else notice?
Yes, something did happen after Au
Benjamin Kosnik wrote on 08/22/06 07:56:
> Hey y'all. I'm just getting back from vacation and as I re-build my
> testing baselines, I've noticed a huge compilation time regression.
> This happened sometime post Aug 1, 2006. Anybody else notice?
>
Yes, something did happen after Aug11. The SPEC te
On Tue, 2006-08-22 13:56:28 +0200, Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey y'all. I'm just getting back from vacation and as I re-build my
> testing baselines, I've noticed a huge compilation time regression.
> This happened sometime post Aug 1, 2006. Anybody else notice?
I did. But I adm
Hey y'all. I'm just getting back from vacation and as I re-build my
testing baselines, I've noticed a huge compilation time regression.
This happened sometime post Aug 1, 2006. Anybody else notice?
Some of this was also measured more formally on the CSiBE website:
http://www.csibe.org/ctx-full.ph
