http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #6 from dnovillo at google dot com dnovillo at google dot com
2012-08-21 13:38:24 UTC ---
On 2012-08-20 22:59 , hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-08-21 13:58:05
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
If it's related to the hash table, then comparing rev 188059 vs rev
188129 may show the regression.
Neither rev 188059 nor rev
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #8 from dnovillo at google dot com dnovillo at google dot com
2012-08-21 14:06:34 UTC ---
On 2012-08-21 09:58 , hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-08-21 16:20:37
UTC ---
Revision 188059 is bad:
f951: out of memory allocating 36872 bytes after a total of 583266304 bytes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #10 from dnovillo at google dot com dnovillo at google dot com
2012-08-21 16:44:10 UTC ---
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:20 PM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
Diego Novillo dnovillo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-08-21 17:10:09
UTC ---
It can be reproduced with -frecord-marker=4 -O -funswitch-loops.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-08-21 17:41:10
UTC ---
It failed even with
diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-loop.c
index 3d650bf..30ac4b5 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-loop.c
@@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #15 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-08-21 17:57:59
UTC ---
It failed with
diff --git a/gcc/passes.c b/gcc/passes.c
index b6fe18e..10174c4 100644
--- a/gcc/passes.c
+++ b/gcc/passes.c
@@ -1449,7 +1449,6 @@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-08-21 18:08:49
UTC ---
There are:
opts.c:typedef char *char_p; /* For DEF_VEC_P. */
opts.c:DEF_VEC_P(char_p);
opts.c:DEF_VEC_ALLOC_P(char_p,heap);
opts-global.c:typedef const char
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #17 from dnovillo at google dot com dnovillo at google dot com
2012-08-21 18:19:10 UTC ---
On 2012-08-21 14:08 , hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #18 from dnovillo at google dot com dnovillo at google dot com
2012-08-21 18:31:51 UTC ---
OK, I think this is the hunk that's causing grief:
diff --git a/gcc/df-scan.c b/gcc/df-scan.c
index 39f444f..35100d1 100644
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #19 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-08-21 18:54:45
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
It failed with
diff --git a/gcc/passes.c b/gcc/passes.c
index b6fe18e..10174c4 100644
--- a/gcc/passes.c
+++ b/gcc/passes.c
@@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #20 from dnovillo at google dot com dnovillo at google dot com
2012-08-21 19:07:33 UTC ---
On 2012-08-21 14:54 , hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
With --enable-gather-detailed-mem-stats, I got
Alloc-pool Kind Elt size
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #21 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-21
19:19:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
Odd that this has not triggered anywhere else.
It may have triggered elsewhere, see PR54343 ...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #22 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-08-21 19:27:50
UTC ---
This seems to work:
diff --git a/gcc/df-scan.c b/gcc/df-scan.c
index 35100d1..39f444f 100644
--- a/gcc/df-scan.c
+++ b/gcc/df-scan.c
@@ -4392,6 +4392,7 @@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #23 from dnovillo at google dot com dnovillo at google dot com
2012-08-21 19:50:12 UTC ---
On 2012-08-21 15:27 , hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #22 from H.J. Lu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #24 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-08-21 19:53:14
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #23)
The problem with this is that you are switching a stack vec into a heap
vec. This may not always be what the caller wanted.
My
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #25 from dnovillo at google dot com dnovillo at google dot com
2012-08-21 20:49:16 UTC ---
On 2012-08-21 15:53 , hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #24 from H.J. Lu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #26 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-21
21:07:07 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Aug 21 21:07:01 2012
New Revision: 190576
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190576
Log:
Restore
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||areg.melikadamyan at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-08-20 21:18:00
UTC ---
Revision 190401 takes 512MB virtual memory to compile module_domain.fppized.f90
while revision 190402 takes 10GB. This is a 20x increase.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||memory-hog
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
Ever
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-08-21 02:59:15
UTC ---
It was introduced between revision 189101 and revision 189664
on cxx-conversion branch. Unfortunately, since branch was broken
between those 2 revisions, I can't
28 matches
Mail list logo
