https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65076
--- Comment #34 from Markus Trippelsdorf <trippels at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #33) > On Tue, 31 Mar 2015, trippels at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65076 > > > > --- Comment #32 from Markus Trippelsdorf <trippels at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #31) > > > No negative effects seen. Update on the regression? P3->P1 before > > > willfully downgrading later... > > > > It depends on the target machine. On amdfam10 it is still 12%, > > on sandybridge it is less than 10%. > > But tramp3d-v4.cpp compiled with gcc-5 runs 3.5% faster thanks to -ipa-icf. > > Ok, I'd say we should disable new passes for a fair comparison - is > using -fno-ipa-icf significantly better? No, it is in the noise. > 10% is a lot (IMHO). I wonder how compile-time evolved on other > code-bases (I see ~3% on the CSiBE compile for example, at -Os). > > How does -O2 compile-time compare? amdfam10: 23.721 vs. 21.060 = 11.2179% sandybridge: 16.978 vs. 15.360 = 9.52998%
