https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #28 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Feb 25 15:49:34 2015
New Revision: 220974
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220974&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR debug/58315
* decl.c (start_preparsed_function): Use create_ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #27 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Alexandre Oliva from comment #26)
> I had failed to measure peak memory use. It went down from more than 4.8G
> to less than 460M (vs 380MB without debug info). Wheee!
Wheee!
Note that this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #26 from Alexandre Oliva ---
I had failed to measure peak memory use. It went down from more than 4.8G to
less than 460M (vs 380MB without debug info). Wheee!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|aldyh at g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #23)
> Absolutely, _all_ of them are different for that matter. I think what
> Richi was saying was that we could do a DSE type pass but take
> intervening stores
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #23 from Aldy Hernandez ---
On 02/24/2015 07:53 AM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
>
> --- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #21)
>> Le
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #21)
> Let me see if I understood this correctly. We need a DSE/DCE pass right
> before var-tracking that would eliminate the redundant `this' statements
> right b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #21 from Aldy Hernandez ---
On 02/24/2015 12:39 AM, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
> But yes, we have multiple such assignments to 'this' at the (possible
> assembler) location of a single statement which of course doesn't help.
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 23 Feb 2015, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
>
> Aldy Hernandez changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #18 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Created attachment 34852
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34852&action=edit
reduced and indented testcase
Memory explosion occurs while compiling test03() function. Memory usage before
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #17 from Aldy Hernandez ---
BTW, if it isn't clear from the previous comment, the reason I believe this
test may be inefficient is because we have pages upon pages of:
cs.insert(Coefficient("1125899906842624")*B
>= Coef
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #15 from Aldy Hernandez ---
And annoyingly, even stuff as repetitive like this (notice, the same exact `di'
register, no offset or anything):
(note 11470254 74094 11470255 6371 (var_location this(0x7fffeeac8bd0) (reg:DI
5 di [17204]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #13 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #12)
> Just checked r220835 from today and it still takes more than 2GB of virtual
> memory. (the compiler has checking enabled, but I doubt that makes a
> differen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
Just checked r220835 from today and it still takes more than 2GB of virtual
memory. (the compiler has checking enabled, but I doubt that makes a
difference?)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #10)
> Is your attached testcase ./cc1plus-ing unmodified?
With -O2 -g -fpermissive, yes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #10 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
> Hmm, I still see >2GB of memory - just checked with ulimit -v 200 where
> 4.7
> succeeds but 4.8, 4.9 and 5 (r220758).
>
> Thus, re-confirmed. Without va
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #8 from Aldy Hernan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.4 |4.8.5
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek
24 matches
Mail list logo
