From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=93scar_Fuentes?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: The Emacs master is much slower than the emacs-27 branch. Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2020 16:31:45 +0100 Message-ID: <87sg8kw9pa.fsf@telefonica.net> References: <83o8j9eqwx.fsf@gnu.org> <874kl1spe9.fsf@gmx.net> <83blf9em55.fsf@gnu.org> <87zh2tr82r.fsf@gmx.net> <87v9dhr7i5.fsf@gmx.net> <838sadefiw.fsf@gnu.org> <83360le421.fsf@gnu.org> <83y2idcn8q.fsf@gnu.org> <83wnxxcmjr.fsf@gnu.org> <83tut0d7e9.fsf@gnu.org> <83h7p0d37y.fsf@gnu.org> <83ft4kd2ym.fsf@gnu.org> <83eek4d2co.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="32979"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:teTh/KmKW9qixC9I2WWZ3c9Mcro= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 05 16:34:50 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1klZaD-0008Rl-UH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 16:34:49 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34758 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1klZaC-0003Il-Vo for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 10:34:49 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:37570) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1klZY1-0002DS-90 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 10:32:33 -0500 Original-Received: from static.214.254.202.116.clients.your-server.de ([116.202.254.214]:38814 helo=ciao.gmane.io) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1klZXP-0002I0-8Q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 10:32:33 -0500 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1klZXK-0004mF-Rc for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 16:31:50 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Received-SPF: pass client-ip=116.202.254.214; envelope-from=ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; helo=ciao.gmane.io X-Spam_score_int: -15 X-Spam_score: -1.6 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.6 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:260372 Archived-At: Gregory Heytings via "Emacs development discussions." writes: >> >> It occurred to me that the differences in the relative performance >> could be due to a different GCC version and/ >> > > GCC is not the problem here, I just ran the same benchmark with Emacs > 27 compiled with different versions of GCC: > > | GCC 8.4 | GCC 9.3 | GCC 10.2 | > -Og | ~67s | ~68s | ~67s | > -O0 | ~63s | ~63s | ~63s | > -O1 | ~26s | ~27s | ~26s | > -O2 | ~18s | ~18s | ~18s | > -O3 | ~18s | ~17s | ~17s | > >> >> or the effect of inlining on 32-bit code vs 64-bit code produced by GCC. >> > > That's possible indeed. In case you are discussing the origin of the problem, it is clear to me that it is related to -Og and changing "extern inline" to "static", which has an impact due to -finline-functions-called-once being disabled at -Og because those functions are not inlined anymore.