http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51635
--- Comment #25 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2011-12-22 09:48:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #23)
Another fun (well ...) patch that is worth trying is
Index: gcc/gimple.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51635
--- Comment #9 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-21
09:29:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
(In reply to comment #7)
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
This one is extremely slow. lto1 has already used
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51635
--- Comment #10 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2011-12-21 09:37:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
(In reply to comment #8)
(In reply to comment #7)
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
That's weird. Did
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51635
--- Comment #11 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-21
10:56:01 UTC ---
One issue we still hit is that we for example merge in
stl_iterator_base_types.h
templatetypename _Iterator
struct iterator_traits
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51635
--- Comment #12 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-21
11:03:46 UTC ---
Created attachment 26158
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26158
patch candidate to speed up uniquify nodes
I was also experimenting
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51635
--- Comment #13 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2011-12-21 12:55:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
One issue we still hit is that we for example merge in
stl_iterator_base_types.h
templatetypename _Iterator
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51635
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51635
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26158|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51635
--- Comment #16 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-21
13:00:37 UTC ---
Created attachment 26162
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26162
patch for this bug
And finally the patch for this particular bug, to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51635
--- Comment #17 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2011-12-21 13:47:16 UTC ---
It's a little bit faster now. But it still takes 9 CPU-minutes
to output all ltrans files. And then the following happens:
At top level:
lto1:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51635
--- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2011-12-21 14:05:42 UTC ---
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011, markus at trippelsdorf dot de wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51635
--- Comment #17 from Markus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51635
--- Comment #19 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-21
15:00:21 UTC ---
Btw, one issue with merging based on DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION is that reducing
LTO testcases is going to be disrupted by source line changes. So for it
to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51635
--- Comment #20 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-21
15:06:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
Btw, one issue with merging based on DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION is that reducing
LTO testcases is going to be disrupted by source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51635
--- Comment #21 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2011-12-21 15:47:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
(In reply to comment #19)
Btw, one issue with merging based on DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION is that reducing
LTO testcases
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51635
--- Comment #22 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2011-12-21 15:51:16 UTC ---
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011, markus at trippelsdorf dot de wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51635
--- Comment #21 from Markus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51635
--- Comment #23 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-21
16:01:30 UTC ---
Another fun (well ...) patch that is worth trying is
Index: gcc/gimple.c
===
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51635
Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51635
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51635
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-20
12:13:27 UTC ---
(gdb) call debug_tree (context)
record_type 0x758bd7e0 nsSVGEffects asm_written QI
...
(gdb) call debug_tree (context-type_common.name)
type_decl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51635
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-20
14:16:35 UTC ---
It's actually easy to do. We just have to make sure that the TYPE_DECLs we
refer to are those of their type. Thus,
Index: gcc/lto/lto.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51635
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-20
14:47:25 UTC ---
Doesn't work. Instead testing a similar
Index: gcc/lto/lto.c
===
--- gcc/lto/lto.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51635
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2011-12-20 15:31:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Doesn't work. Instead testing a similar
Index: gcc/lto/lto.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51635
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2011-12-20 15:38:16 UTC ---
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011, markus at trippelsdorf dot de wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51635
--- Comment #5 from Markus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51635
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2011-12-20 15:40:01 UTC ---
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011, markus at trippelsdorf dot de wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51635
--- Comment #8 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2011-12-20 18:06:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
This one is extremely slow. lto1 has already used 12min of CPU time when
25 matches
Mail list logo
