Daniel Berlin wrote:
...
If i don't turn off scheduling entirely, this testcase now takes >10
minutes to compile (I gave up after that).
With scheduling turned off, it takes 315 seconds, checking enabled.
It looks like the scheduler is now trying to schedule some single region
with 51,000 ins
On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 16:35 +0300, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> I can't find the testcase attached to any message of the thread. Could
> it be because of the message size? If so, please send the testcase both
> to me and Maxim, one of us will look into it.
>
> Thanks, Andrey
>
Hi Daniel,
I can't find the testcase attached to any message of the thread. Could
it be because of the message size? If so, please send the testcase both
to me and Maxim, one of us will look into it.
Thanks, Andrey
> >
> > I used the attached one with -fpermissive
>
>
> Thanks, i'm looking into it now.
>
So the alias analysis time increase *is* the result of moving the
is_global_var check out of is_call_clobbered. This is easy to fix, i'll
have a patch in a few hours.
However, there is worse news, AFAI
On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 22:13 -0500, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 18:00 -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > > Maybe someone can have a look at the attribute((pointer_no_escape))
> > > patch I posted a while ago. With some IPA machinery we could possibly
> > > trim down the clobber lists
On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 22:16 -0500, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 17:42 -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 17:30 -0500, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> > > On T
> > > I seem to have narrowed it down to this patch:
> > >
> > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-01/msg
On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 17:42 -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 17:30 -0500, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> > On T
> > 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 :).
>
It was, I am su
> Maybe someone can have a look at the attribute((pointer_no_escape))
> patch I posted a while ago. With some IPA machinery we could possibly
> trim down the clobber lists quite a bit.
>
Well, let me confirm first that he is right. This requires a cpgram.ii
that compiles (none of the attachmen
On 3/21/06, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 17:30 -0500, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> >
> > 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
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:
>
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 analy
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:
> >
> > > I'm not sure when this happened, but I noticed on the weekend that
> > > there
> > > has been an explosion in the time spe
On Mon, 2006-03-20 at 18:55 -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Mar 20, 2006, at 5:18 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure when this happened, but I noticed on the weekend that
> > there
> > has been an explosion in the time spent during the alias analysis
> > phase.
> > using cplusplus-gra
On Mar 20, 2006, at 5:18 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
I'm not sure when this happened, but I noticed on the weekend that
there
has been an explosion in the time spent during the alias analysis
phase.
using cplusplus-grammer.ii, it use to compile on my machine in about 55
seconds, and its now up
I'm not sure when this happened, but I noticed on the weekend that there
has been an explosion in the time spent during the alias analysis phase.
using cplusplus-grammer.ii, it use to compile on my machine in about 55
seconds, and its now up to about 150 seconds.
A quick gprof indicated about 60%
15 matches
Mail list logo
