On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 17:30 -0500, Andrew MacLeod wrote: > 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 >
That's quite a while ago :). > > > 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. Can you send me cpgram.ii, so i can look into it? i will note the patch is pretty much required for correctness. We were getting seriously wrong answers before in some cases.
