19:06 < lool> cjwatson: I built with -O0 -fno-common -fno-foo ... disabling all enabled opts until the output would only mention one enabled opt
which is the reverse of another one; the build still takes hundreds of megs of RAM and I stop it at around 80 % RAM after 3 minutes
19:07 < lool> I guess I should have tried with an unpatched gcc though
...
19:08 < lool> Oh it passed
19:08 < lool> after 4 minutes or so
19:09 < lool> but using a big load of RAM
...
19:12 < lool> doko: I don't quite know how to attack the upstart build slowness
issue
19:12 < lool> Basically, we're seeing underperformance, but it's hard to qualify how fast gcc should run, or how much memory it's allowed
to use
19:12 < lool> doko: Do you think some patches we're using could be destroying performance?
19:12 < lool> e.g. that 64 bytes align patch
19:13 < lool> That's a binutils patch, but I can see how it could lead to much larger RAM usage
19:13 < doko> lool: where is the time used, in cc1, or as?
19:13 < lool> doko: cc1
19:14 < doko> well, then it's not the align patch, and we are pretty much using upstream, no fancy patches on our own
19:15 < lool> doko: Can I just report it upsteam opening a new bug saying that
it uses a load of RAM/CPU to build a file?
19:15 < lool> ie Is that an acceptable bug?
19:16 < doko> lool: sure, better check it with 4.3 (or older) as well to see if
it's a regression or not.
...
19:23 < lool> doko: It's about the same performance with gcc-4.3
19:06 < lool> cjwatson: I built with -O0 -fno-common -fno-foo ... disabling all
enabled opts until the output would only mention one enabled opt
hundreds of megs of RAM and I stop it at around 80 % RAM after 3
minutes
qualify how fast gcc should run, or how much memory it's allowed
performance?
larger RAM usage
upstream, no fancy patches on our own
which is the reverse of another one; the build still takes
19:07 < lool> I guess I should have tried with an unpatched gcc though
...
19:08 < lool> Oh it passed
19:08 < lool> after 4 minutes or so
19:09 < lool> but using a big load of RAM
...
19:12 < lool> doko: I don't quite know how to attack the upstart build slowness
issue
19:12 < lool> Basically, we're seeing underperformance, but it's hard to
to use
19:12 < lool> doko: Do you think some patches we're using could be destroying
19:12 < lool> e.g. that 64 bytes align patch
19:13 < lool> That's a binutils patch, but I can see how it could lead to much
19:13 < doko> lool: where is the time used, in cc1, or as?
19:13 < lool> doko: cc1
19:14 < doko> well, then it's not the align patch, and we are pretty much using
19:15 < lool> doko: Can I just report it upsteam opening a new bug saying that
it uses a load of RAM/CPU to build a file?
19:15 < lool> ie Is that an acceptable bug?
19:16 < doko> lool: sure, better check it with 4.3 (or older) as well to see if
it's a regression or not.
...
19:23 < lool> doko: It's about the same performance with gcc-4.3