[Bug tree-optimization/17790] [4.0 Regression] Significant compile time increases for sixtrack with tree LICM and IV optimization
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-23 09:25 --- Is this patch still 4.0 material? No reviewers have looked at it yet :-/ -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17790
[Bug tree-optimization/17790] [4.0 Regression] Significant compile time increases for sixtrack with tree LICM and IV optimization
--- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-06 20:25 --- Updated version of the patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-02/msg00205.html -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17790
[Bug tree-optimization/17790] [4.0 Regression] Significant compile time increases for sixtrack with tree LICM and IV optimization
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-02 08:13 --- Any news here? This is one of the more serious compile time problems in GCC4, I've seen a number of cases where these passes are high up in the profile. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17790
[Bug tree-optimization/17790] [4.0 Regression] Significant compile time increases for sixtrack with tree LICM and IV optimization
--- Additional Comments From rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz 2005-02-02 08:38 --- Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] Significant compile time increases for sixtrack with tree LICM and IV optimization Any news here? This is one of the more serious compile time problems in GCC4, I've seen a number of cases where these passes are high up in the profile. As for ivopts, the problems reported under this PR are solved. So if you have a testcase where ivopts eat more than 1% of time without a good reason, please let me know. I will try to update and resend the patch for inefficiency in store motion. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17790
[Bug tree-optimization/17790] [4.0 Regression] Significant compile time increases for sixtrack with tree LICM and IV optimization
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-02 09:17 --- 18687 is one example where IVopts takes a significant amount of time (9%). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17790
[Bug tree-optimization/17790] [4.0 Regression] Significant compile time increases for sixtrack with tree LICM and IV optimization
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-06 00:02 --- Hmm, I found another testcase where we are slow at LIM: loop invariant motion : 2.55 ( 5%) usr 0.40 ( 3%) sys 3.36 ( 4%) wall This is PR8361. Zdenek can you update your patch for the changes where V_MUST_DEF changes and see what the compile time improvements you get with the patch? -- What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||8361 nThis|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17790
[Bug tree-optimization/17790] [4.0 Regression] Significant compile time increases for sixtrack with tree LICM and IV optimization
--- Additional Comments From rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz 2004-12-06 00:12 --- Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] Significant compile time increases for sixtrack with tree LICM and IV optimization --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-06 00:02 --- Hmm, I found another testcase where we are slow at LIM: loop invariant motion : 2.55 ( 5%) usr 0.40 ( 3%) sys 3.36 ( 4%) wall This is PR8361. Zdenek can you update your patch for the changes where V_MUST_DEF changes and see what the compile time improvements you get with the patch? there is an updated version of the patch http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-10/msg01642.html that should work (possibly with minor changes due to some renaming). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17790
[Bug tree-optimization/17790] [4.0 Regression] Significant compile time increases for sixtrack with tree LICM and IV optimization
-- What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||18693 nThis|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17790
[Bug tree-optimization/17790] [4.0 Regression] Significant compile time increases for sixtrack with tree LICM and IV optimization
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-25 20:47 --- I see LICM on some other code high up on the radar. -- What|Removed |Added CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot ||org Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed||1 Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2004-11-25 20:47:23 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17790
[Bug tree-optimization/17790] [4.0 Regression] Significant compile time increases for sixtrack with tree LICM and IV optimization
--- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-17 19:05 --- I cannot reproduce the ivopts problem on daten.f (ivopts are 2% for me, which is not great, but also not so terrible). IM problem reproduces. mainrc.f currently runs out of memory for me. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17790
[Bug tree-optimization/17790] [4.0 Regression] Significant compile time increases for sixtrack with tree LICM and IV optimization
--- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-17 19:20 --- Actually mainrc.f does not run out of memory, but causes segfault during garbage collection (infinite recursion). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17790
[Bug tree-optimization/17790] [4.0 Regression] Significant compile time increases for sixtrack with tree LICM and IV optimization
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-17 19:44 --- the ivopts stuff may have been fixed by your ivopts patch for important candidates. i'll try maincr again. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17790
[Bug tree-optimization/17790] [4.0 Regression] Significant compile time increases for sixtrack with tree LICM and IV optimization
--- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-17 20:16 --- IM problem seems to be caused by some inefficiency in store motion (I suspect scanning loop repeatedly for various insignificant virtual operands). Anyway, the patch for PR 17133 (complete rewrite of store motion) fixes this (reduces the compile time to 1%). http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-09/msg01120.html -- What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17790
