https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94256
--- Comment #2 from Sultan Alsawaf <sultan at kerneltoast dot com> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> That is why it is limited in the first place:
> /* Update number of blocks and the estimate for number of insns
> in the region. Return true if the region is "too large" for interblock
> scheduling (compile time considerations). */
>
> static bool
> too_large (int block, int *num_bbs, int *num_insns)
> {
> (*num_bbs)++;
> (*num_insns) += (common_sched_info->estimate_number_of_insns
> (BASIC_BLOCK_FOR_FN (cfun, block)));
>
> return ((*num_bbs > param_max_sched_region_blocks)
> || (*num_insns > param_max_sched_region_insns));
> }
>
> ---- CUT -----
> having a more than 10 basic blocks in a region is huge really.
Yes, I'm aware of that code snippet. However, the parameter does not have any
limits specified in params.def, and I didn't notice *any* difference in
resource consumption at 48 compared to 10, so why should I be allowed to set
49+ and break GCC entirely?
