On Wed, 19 Sep 2018, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> The second testcase in the above PR runs into our O(N) bitmap element
> search limitation and spends 8s (60%) of the compile-time in the SSA
> propagator
> engine (when optimizing). The patch improves that to 0.9s (15%). For the
> first testcase
On Wed, 19 Sep 2018, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 3:06 PM Richard Biener wrote:
> > If we'd only had a O(log n) search sparse bitmap implementation ...
> > (Steven posted patches to switch bitmap from/to such one but IIRC
> > that at least lacked bitmap_first_set_bit).
>
> But
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 3:06 PM Richard Biener wrote:
> If we'd only had a O(log n) search sparse bitmap implementation ...
> (Steven posted patches to switch bitmap from/to such one but IIRC
> that at least lacked bitmap_first_set_bit).
But bitmap_first_set_bit would be easy to implement. Just ta
On Wed, 19 Sep 2018, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 03:06:30PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > The second testcase in the above PR runs into our O(N) bitmap element
> > search limitation and spends 8s (60%) of the compile-time in the SSA
> > propagator
> > engine (when optim
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 03:06:30PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> The second testcase in the above PR runs into our O(N) bitmap element
> search limitation and spends 8s (60%) of the compile-time in the SSA
> propagator
> engine (when optimizing). The patch improves that to 0.9s (15%). For th
The second testcase in the above PR runs into our O(N) bitmap element
search limitation and spends 8s (60%) of the compile-time in the SSA propagator
engine (when optimizing). The patch improves that to 0.9s (15%). For the
first testcase it isn't that bad but still the patch improves CCP from
On Wed, 18 Mar 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
> On March 18, 2015 4:59:30 PM GMT+01:00, Alan Lawrence
> wrote:
> >Following this patch (r221318), we're seeing what appears to be a
> >miscompile of
> >glibc on AArch64. This causes quite a bunch of tests to fail, segfaults
> >etc., if
> >LD_LIBRARY
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> Following this patch (r221318), we're seeing what appears to be a miscompile
> of glibc on AArch64. This causes quite a bunch of tests to fail, segfaults
> etc., if LD_LIBRARY_PATH leads to a libc.so.6 built with that patch vs
> without (same
On March 18, 2015 4:59:30 PM GMT+01:00, Alan Lawrence
wrote:
>Following this patch (r221318), we're seeing what appears to be a
>miscompile of
>glibc on AArch64. This causes quite a bunch of tests to fail, segfaults
>etc., if
>LD_LIBRARY_PATH leads to a libc.so.6 built with that patch vs withou
Following this patch (r221318), we're seeing what appears to be a miscompile of
glibc on AArch64. This causes quite a bunch of tests to fail, segfaults etc., if
LD_LIBRARY_PATH leads to a libc.so.6 built with that patch vs without (same
glibc sources). We are still working on a reduced testcase,
On 03/09/15 07:01, Richard Biener wrote:
Ok, like the following which adds a verify_ssa_coalescing () function
(which could in theory be called from IL verification like verify_ssa)
and calls it when ENABLE_CHECKING is defined.
Bootstrap & regtest running on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
It didn't
On 03/09/15 03:42, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, 6 Mar 2015, Jeff Law wrote:
On 03/06/15 06:16, Richard Biener wrote:
This fixes PR63155 and reduces the memory usage at -O0 from reported
10GB (couldn't verify/update on my small box) to 350MB (still worse
compared to 4.8 which needs only 50MB)
On Mon, 9 Mar 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Mar 2015, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> > On 03/06/15 06:16, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > > This fixes PR63155 and reduces the memory usage at -O0 from reported
> > > 10GB (couldn't verify/update on my small box) to 350MB (still worse
> > > compared
On Fri, 6 Mar 2015, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 03/06/15 06:16, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > This fixes PR63155 and reduces the memory usage at -O0 from reported
> > 10GB (couldn't verify/update on my small box) to 350MB (still worse
> > compared to 4.8 which needs only 50MB).
> >
> > It fixes this by
On 03/06/15 06:16, Richard Biener wrote:
This fixes PR63155 and reduces the memory usage at -O0 from reported
10GB (couldn't verify/update on my small box) to 350MB (still worse
compared to 4.8 which needs only 50MB).
It fixes this by no longer computing live info or building a conflict
graph f
This fixes PR63155 and reduces the memory usage at -O0 from reported
10GB (couldn't verify/update on my small box) to 350MB (still worse
compared to 4.8 which needs only 50MB).
It fixes this by no longer computing live info or building a conflict
graph for coalescing of SSA names flowing over abn
16 matches
Mail list logo