On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 10:10 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote: > On 3/21/06, Andrew MacLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 2006-03-20 at 18:55 -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > > On Mar 20, 2006, at 5:18 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote: > > > > It looks like sometime between 10/30 and 01/23 alias analysis got out of > > hand. Odd it hasn't been noted before. > > Can you do a comparison to 4.1.0 and file a PR with the testcase please?
I will do so in a day or so when I get a chance. until then: I seem to have narrowed it down to this patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-01/msg00908.html Dan, this appear to *not* be compile time neutral: Timings on this patch show that it is not faster or slower than what we do now (even with the removal of the call clobbering patch). This is true even on fortran tests i had that clobber a lot of stuff. running cpgram.ii shows a regression: before patch: tree alias analysis : 2.49 ( 7%) usr 0.25 ( 5%) sys 6.13 ( 5%) wall 4971 kB ( 1%) ggc TOTAL : 36.90 4.72 130.34 467341 kB after patch: tree alias analysis : 59.00 (63%) usr 0.40 ( 7%) sys 70.43 (36%) wall 4957 kB ( 1%) ggc TOTAL : 94.13 5.43 193.85 468339 kB on a 386 linux machine bootstrapped with checking disabled. Andrew
