https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77620
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
We get reports like this every few months, and nobody ever uses -ftime-report
before filing a bug. I think something in the -v output would be useful.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77620
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
We already output one if you use -ftime-report.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77620
--- Comment #6 from petschy at gmail dot com ---
Would it be sensible to put an extra line to the output of 'gcc/g++ -v' if the
slow checks are enabled, which just states this fact / warns about (possibly
mentioning the use of --enable-checking=re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77620
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to petschy from comment #2)
> Thanks, --enable-checking=release did the trick. Those unreleased checks
> definitely have some runtime cost :)
Yes in some cases there are O(n^2) checking functions w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77620
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Closing as invalid then. That is --enable-checking=release gets us to where
6.2.1 was.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77620
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77620
--- Comment #2 from petschy at gmail dot com ---
Thanks, --enable-checking=release did the trick. Those unreleased checks
definitely have some runtime cost :)
My project was built in 3m35 with -O3, and the gcc master branch:
7.0.0
-O0 7m30
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77620
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
