On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:00 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2009, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
>>> - Memory consumption in cc1/cc1plus at -Ox -g over that set of apps.
>
> I had to use a different machine for this test. The one I was using had
> to be taken off line and moved, for reasons be
2009/6/21 Richard Guenther :
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:00 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 18, 2009, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>
- Memory consumption in cc1/cc1plus at -Ox -g over that set of apps.
>>
>> I had to use a different machine for this test. The one I was using had
>> to be tak
2009/6/21 Richard Guenther :
> 2009/6/21 Richard Guenther :
>
> So I just tested tramp3d for memory usage (I hope I got the same flags as you,
> base flags are -O2 -ffast-math -funroll-loops):
>
> -g0 -fno-var-tracking -fno-var-tracking-assignments: 502361 kB
-g0 -fno-var-tracking -fvar-tracking-a
Snapshot gcc-4.3-20090621 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3-20090621/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.3 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
>1) How these unrecognized RTLs are generated?
>RTL generation depends on the templates in the .md file. If the format of
>these RTLs is not legal, you should review related templates.
>2) Add templates to match the unrecognized RTLs if they are legal.
Yeah, you are right.
But I have already
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> Imagine a loop like this
>
> EXECUTE_IF_SET_IN_BITMAP (something, 0, i, bi)
> {
> bitmap_clear_bit (something, i)
> [ ... whatever code we want to process i, ... ]
> }
>
> This code is unsafe.
>
> If bit I happens to be the only bit set in
