On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 11:02 PM Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 2020-08-11 at 13:37 +0200, Martin Liška wrote: > > From cc1d41a469d76f2f8e4f44bed788ace77a1c6d62 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: Martin Liska <mli...@suse.cz> > > Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 12:09:19 +0200 > > Subject: [PATCH 3/3] vec: use inexact growth where possible. > > > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > > > * cfgrtl.c (rtl_create_basic_block): Use default value for > > growth vector function. > > * gimple.c (gimple_set_bb): Likewise. > > * symbol-summary.h: Likewise. > > * tree-cfg.c (init_empty_tree_cfg_for_function): Likewise. > > (build_gimple_cfg): Likewise. > > (create_bb): Likewise. > > (move_block_to_fn): Likewise. > I'll note that in some cases we were avoiding exponential growth in our new > size > computations. Presumably the inexact growth support will do something > similar, > even if it's not exactly the same. Right? Assuming that's the case this is > OK > too.
@@ -183,12 +183,12 @@ init_empty_tree_cfg_for_function (struct function *fn) last_basic_block_for_fn (fn) = NUM_FIXED_BLOCKS; vec_alloc (basic_block_info_for_fn (fn), initial_cfg_capacity); vec_safe_grow_cleared (basic_block_info_for_fn (fn), - initial_cfg_capacity, true); + initial_cfg_capacity); /* Build a mapping of labels to their associated blocks. */ vec_alloc (label_to_block_map_for_fn (fn), initial_cfg_capacity); vec_safe_grow_cleared (label_to_block_map_for_fn (fn), - initial_cfg_capacity, true); + initial_cfg_capacity); this is odd now at least since we explicitely alloc initial_cfg_capacity. IMHO we should instead use basic_block_info_for_fn (fn)->quick_grow_cleared (initial_cfg_capacity) here? The rest looks OK and along the plan. Thanks, Richard. > jeff >
