--- Comment #28 from phython at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-08 06:48
---
Steven: How long does 4.0 take to compile this function on your box?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19097
--- Comment #27 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-08 00:18 ---
On AMD64, revision 106596M (the M is for a local loop-invariant.c
patch, nothing special), compiler built with --enable-checking=release:
at -O1:
tree operand scan : 1.50 (10%) usr 0.09 (17%) sys 1.62 (10
--- Comment #26 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 17:12 ---
Moving back to new, because I don't know if the GCSE CPROP issue with implicit
sets is also already fixed.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #25 from amacleod at redhat dot com 2005-10-31 15:19 ---
Subject: Bug 19097
Author: amacleod
Date: Mon Oct 31 13:38:05 2005
New Revision: 106272
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=106272
Log:
2005-10-31 Andrew MacLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR tr
--- Comment #24 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 15:04
---
I fixed the bug that was preventing it from sending it to this bug, it should
pop up in a second
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19097
--- Comment #23 from amacleod at redhat dot com 2005-10-31 14:41 ---
Hmm. This has been committed, but the commit hasn't shown up yet. Perhaps
because I tagged it as a tree-optimization PR and I now notice that its marked
as rtl-optimization?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.
--- Comment #22 from amacleod at redhat dot com 2005-10-31 13:33 ---
It will be checked in shortly. I got your OK for this stage last week, and I
was merely waiting for the SVN switchover freeze to expire, trying a new build
and getting back to work today.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugz
--- Comment #21 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 02:02
---
I'm going to leave this as P2, since we've got a proposed patch in Comment #19.
Andrew, do you need a review on that patch? Or, is there any other reason it
hasn't been committed?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugz
--- Comment #20 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-29 22:38 ---
amacleod, are you going to post your patch and/or commit it??
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #19 from amacleod at redhat dot com 2005-10-18 12:25 ---
Created an attachment (id=10017)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10017&action=view)
patch for operand scan
Now that correct_use_link is *only* used for real uses, it is no longer
profitable to try t
--- Comment #18 from bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-18 08:36
---
Steven, how does your df.c-based cprop fare on this testcase?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19097
--- Comment #17 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 23:20 ---
On AMD64, I now get the following timings:
-O1 -O2
3.3 (profilebootstrapped) 46.64 46.90
4.1 (checking=release) 72.82 156.43
In 4.1, the Big Spenders are "dominance frontiers
--
Bug 19097 depends on bug 21430, which changed state.
Bug 21430 Summary: [4.1 Regression] Quadratic behavior with constant
initializers
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21430
What|Old Value |New Value
--
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-19
00:15 ---
Another SSA operands cache slowness example...
--
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-19
00:14 ---
For -O1 on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu:
For 4.1.0:
tree operand scan : 18.28 (50%) usr 0.10 (18%) sys 18.33 (50%) wall
402 kB ( 0%) ggc
That is the same issue as PR 21430
For both 4.0.0 and 4.1.0:
4.
--- Additional Comments From phython at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-25
07:03 ---
FOO! The exact testcase I have been testing for the last couple days has been
#define CL0(a) if (b == a) { foo (); } , so all the work DOM was doing converts
the if's to else if's .
--
http://gcc.gnu.o
--- Additional Comments From phython at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-25
06:03 ---
DOM also eats a metric ton of memory on this testcase. 900MB with C3(1).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19097
--- Additional Comments From phython at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-25
05:24 ---
If I use C5(1) with two C4's in C5 then I get a stack overflow in VRP between
find_assert_locations and find_conditional_asserts.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19097
--- Additional Comments From phython at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-23
06:46 ---
Here is an updated time-report with the main time contributors on ppc-linux with
checking disabled.
tree VRP : 75.60 (11%) usr 0.39 ( 0%) sys 89.92 ( 9%) wall
13693 kB ( 6%) ggc
tree ope
--- Additional Comments From phython at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-08
12:43 ---
Ok, I seem to be wrong, hash_set still seems to be used for implicit sets.
However, the destination registers in gcc 4.1 are all different:
SET hash table (1251 buckets, 1001 entries)
Index 0 (hash value 3
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-08
09:38 ---
Can you try and figure out which patch changed this for GCC 4.1? Bonus
points if you can see if backporting that patch gives GCC 4.0 a speed-up,
because in that case you may have something to go to Mark wi
--- Additional Comments From phython at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-08
03:32 ---
The problem with the hash table seems to be fixed in gcc 4.1, but not gcc 3.4
or 4.0. In gcc 4.1 hash_rtx is used for the implicit sets instead of the really
dumb hash_set.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzil
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-05
23:37 ---
I don't think this will be fixed for 4.1, unless we kick out implicit
sets from gcse, or all of gcse. The former may be possible if our
const/copy prop at the tree level is good enough, but I wouldn't coun
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19097
24 matches
Mail list logo
