On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 06:16:03PM +0200, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote: > On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 5:49 PM, Christopher Li <sparse@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >>> >> In the memops finding dominating store is doing a lot worse. That is > >>> >> why gcc complete that file almost instantly. Sparse takes 30 seconds > >>> >> on my machine. One big problem is it did not cache the dominating > >>> >> result. It is redoing the finding again and again. > >>> > >>> > Uh? > >>> > Which input file your talking about? > >>> > >>> This ptrlist testing wine source file that takes 23 second for sparse to run. > >>> I take a brief look at it, it is doing a lot of dominating search. > >> > >> Is it possible to have a pathname or a link? > > > > It is the very first email I send out: > > > > > > git clone git://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git > > cd win/dlls/usp10/tests > > > > The test command: > > > > time sparse -m64 -c -o usp10.o usp10.c -I. -I../../../include > > -D__WINESRC__ -D_REENTRANT -fPIC -Wall -pipe -fno-strict-aliasing > > -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wempty-body -Wignored-qualifiers > > -Wshift-overflow=2 -Wstrict-prototypes -Wtype-limits > > -Wunused-but-set-parameter -Wvla -Wwrite-strings -Wpointer-arith > > -Wlogical-op -gdwarf-2 -gstrict-dwarf -g -O2 > > OK, thanks. I'll take a look once the infinite loop problem will be closed. > > > I think gcc compile this file very fast but sparse spend a lot of time on it. > > Interesting. > On most input sparse is much faster than gcc, often by a factor or 10 > or even more. But of course, if there is a problem with sparse ... > > > My impression it is spending time repeat finding dominating stores. > Possible indeed. When I try the command you gave with -rc4 sparse I get: real 0m3.281s user 0m3.175s sys 0m0.097s wich is very far from the 23-30s you got. Dunno what the difference could be. For comparison, with the new 7 patches the time is now: real 0m2.146s user 0m1.928s sys 0m0.214s wich is significatively faster. And with gcc I get: real 0m2.153s user 0m2.080s sys 0m0.078s Also, the result of the preprocessing is a 13K lines, 788K bytes file. I would still expect that sparse is (much) faster than gcc, but with the number I have here, I'm not sure I can say something is wrong. But we should first find why you got 23-30s while I got 3.3. -- Luc -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
