Re: [patch] Split Parse Timevar (issue4378056)

2011-04-27 Thread Lawrence Crowl
This discussion continues in the thread "[patch] Split Parse Timevar (rev 2) (issue4433076)" which has a new uploaded patch. On 4/23/11, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 04/22/2011 06:41 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote: >> On 4/21/11, Jason Merrill wrote: >>> On 04/21/2011 07:17 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote: > >>

Re: [patch] Split Parse Timevar (issue4378056)

2011-04-23 Thread Jason Merrill
On 04/22/2011 06:41 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote: On 4/21/11, Jason Merrill wrote: On 04/21/2011 07:17 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote: That makes sense. Inlines in the class aren't significantly different from inlines outside the class, but inlines are significantly different from non-inlines for our

Re: [patch] Split Parse Timevar (issue4378056)

2011-04-22 Thread Lawrence Crowl
On 4/21/11, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 04/21/2011 07:17 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote: @@ -1911,7 +1911,7 @@ ggc_collect (void) - timevar_push (TV_GC); + timevar_start (TV_GC); >>> >>> Why this change? GC time shouldn't be counted against whatever we >>> happen to be parsing when it ha

Re: [patch] Split Parse Timevar (issue4378056)

2011-04-21 Thread Jason Merrill
On 04/21/2011 07:17 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote: @@ -1911,7 +1911,7 @@ ggc_collect (void) - timevar_push (TV_GC); + timevar_start (TV_GC); Why this change? GC time shouldn't be counted against whatever we happen to be parsing when it happens. If not, then code that generates lots of garbage d

Re: [patch] Split Parse Timevar (issue4378056)

2011-04-21 Thread Lawrence Crowl
On 4/20/11, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 04/12/2011 11:49 AM, Lawrence Crowl wrote: >> This patch is available for review at >> http://codereview.appspot.com/4378056 >> + timevar_start (TV_RESOLVE_OVERLOAD); > > Putting this in perform_overload_resolution isn't enough; only a couple > of cases of ov

Re: [patch] Split Parse Timevar (issue4378056)

2011-04-21 Thread Diego Novillo
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 18:00, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 04/12/2011 11:49 AM, Lawrence Crowl wrote: >> >> This patch is available for review at >> http://codereview.appspot.com/4378056 > > I tried to comment there, but it didn't seem to be working; looking at the > side-by-side diffs didn't show a

Re: [patch] Split Parse Timevar (issue4378056)

2011-04-20 Thread Jason Merrill
On 04/12/2011 11:49 AM, Lawrence Crowl wrote: This patch is available for review at http://codereview.appspot.com/4378056 I tried to comment there, but it didn't seem to be working; looking at the side-by-side diffs didn't show any changes, and double-clicking on a line in the patch form didn

Re: [patch] Split Parse Timevar (issue4378056)

2011-04-13 Thread Lawrence Crowl
On 4/13/11, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Apr 12, 2011 Diego Novillo wrote: > > On Apr 12, 2011 Lawrence Crowl wrote: > > > This patch provides more finer, more precise compile time > > > information. I sent an advisory mail some time ago, and it > > > was good then. Please confirm for trunk. >

Re: [patch] Split Parse Timevar (issue4378056)

2011-04-13 Thread Richard Guenther
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Diego Novillo wrote: > On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 14:49, Lawrence Crowl wrote: >> This patch provides more finer, more precise compile time information. >> I sent an advisory mail some time ago, and it was good then.  Please >> confirm for trunk. > > The patch looks

Re: [patch] Split Parse Timevar (issue4378056)

2011-04-12 Thread Diego Novillo
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 14:49, Lawrence Crowl wrote: > This patch provides more finer, more precise compile time information. > I sent an advisory mail some time ago, and it was good then.  Please > confirm for trunk. The patch looks fine to me, but of course it's Jason the one you need an OK fro