Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "r209798".
2014 Aug 01
2
[LLVMdev] Recent compile time performance regressions
On 01/08/2014 22:07, Chandler Carruth wrote:
> Note that I've fixed one bad compile time regression quite recently, and
> we're bisecting to another one. We benchmarked the multithreading stuff
> pretty carefully, so I doubt its that. Have you tried reverting locally and
> reproducing?
Not really. It just saw this passing by and was wondering if it raised
some bells.
The
2014 Aug 01
3
[LLVMdev] Recent compile time performance regressions
...e reason is a false positive.
>
>
> I'm having to question the results on this bot. The range of commits which
> cause the larger compile time regression is 209797 - 209799... But those
> commits are totally innocuous. The closest to a something that could go
> poorly would be r209798, but that commit doesn't seem plausible for a huge
> slowdown.
>
> I wonder if there is something weird going on with the bot...
209797-209799 regression is false positive, due to reverting perf back
to original timeit tool.(r209797)
However the multithreading stuff is real regressio...