--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-24 01:50 ---
Even though this is a regression, we still don't have a testcase after 3 months
so closing as invalid.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-20
17:32 ---
OK thanks. But let me stress one point:
> IMHO the graphs suggest that the daily bugfixes increased the
> compilation time day after day.
In those days, we added something like 20 new projects to GCC (new
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-20
15:08 ---
Also is the -O3 from yesterday before tree-promote-statics was removed, if so
that precentage is
misleading. Today's timing should come back down to around 10%.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug
--- Additional Comments From loki at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-20 12:31
---
(In reply to comment #1)
You are probably right, but it is hard to find such a test case,
because there is only one significant daily regression (I guess from merging),
but this one doesn't explain the overall
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-20
08:15 ---
Of course: March 1st is when GCC went back to Stage 1. There have been dozen
and dozen of projects contributed for GCC 4.1, and probably some still require
tuning.
The best way to attack this is to find an
