https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72855
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72855
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #17
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72855
--- Comment #16 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Thu Aug 11 22:20:41 2016
New Revision: 239395
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239395&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-08-11 Richard Biener
Bill Schmidt
PR rtl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72855
--- Comment #15 from Bill Schmidt ---
For your patch submission, the testing was done on
powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72855
--- Comment #14 from Bill Schmidt ---
Oh, I should have mentioned, it passed bootstrap with no regressions, so the
patch LGTM.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72855
--- Comment #13 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #10)
> Some experiments on trunk:
>
> - Using Bin's patch, I see compile time reduced to ~14 minutes.
> - Using Richi's patch, I see compile time reduced to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72855
--- Comment #12 from Bill Schmidt ---
Last night before I ran out of time, I built a debug compiler on gcc-6-branch,
and flag_checking was always 0, and I didn't have the compile time issue. So
it appears to be something that only occurs with a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72855
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 10 Aug 2016, wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72855
>
> --- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt ---
> Some experiments on trunk:
>
> - Using
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72855
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt ---
Some experiments on trunk:
- Using Bin's patch, I see compile time reduced to ~14 minutes.
- Using Richi's patch, I see compile time reduced to ~9 minutes.
So both are quite helpful compared to somewhere ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72855
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On August 10, 2016 7:20:00 PM GMT+02:00, "dje at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72855
>
>David Edelsohn changed:
>
> What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72855
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72855
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On August 10, 2016 5:15:43 PM GMT+02:00, "wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72855
>
>--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
>(In reply to Richard Bie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72855
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to amker from comment #4)
> It reduces compile time for powerpc-elf on x86_64 machine from 54m to 5m.
> The compiler is configured with checking. With "--enable-checking=release",
> the current tru
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72855
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> If we have release checking enabled then we shuould hit
>
> static void
> df_analyze_1 (void)
> {
> ...
> #ifndef ENABLE_DF_CHECKING
> if (df->changeable_flags
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72855
--- Comment #4 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Here is a simple refactoring patch.
diff --git a/gcc/loop-doloop.c b/gcc/loop-doloop.c
index c311516..9fb04cf 100644
--- a/gcc/loop-doloop.c
+++ b/gcc/loop-doloop.c
@@ -254,18 +254,51 @@ doloop_con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72855
--- Comment #3 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to amker from comment #1)
> Among all loops in the large function, how many loops can be doloop
> optimized successfully? Function doloop__optimize has some valid checks on
> doloop optim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72855
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
If we have release checking enabled then we shuould hit
static void
df_analyze_1 (void)
{
...
#ifndef ENABLE_DF_CHECKING
if (df->changeable_flags & DF_VERIFY_SCHEDULED)
#endif
df_verify ();
so I wond
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72855
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
18 matches
Mail list logo
