[Bug other/35858] time/memory hog for large c++ source.

[rguenther at suse dot de]

--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de  2008-04-09 08:08 ---
Subject: Re:  time/memory hog for large c++ source.

On Tue, 8 Apr 2008, pluto at agmk dot net wrote:

 --- Comment #7 from pluto at agmk dot net  2008-04-08 16:50 ---
 (In reply to comment #6)
  We'll not be able to fix this for 4.3 (the regression is caused by a
  correctness
  fix), but 4.4 will have this param setting as default.
 
 Can i safely set this parameter to zero for vendor gcc package?
 Does the non-zero value fix some bugs or sth?

In principle you can set it to zero, but you will lose optimization
opportunities in the areas of PRE/FRE, loop invariant and store motion
(to name the probably most important ones).

Richard.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35858

[Bug other/35858] time/memory hog for large c++ source.

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-04-08 10:04 ---
We'll not be able to fix this for 4.3 (the regression is caused by a
correctness
fix), but 4.4 will have this param setting as default.


-- 

rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
   |dot org |org
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
 Ever Confirmed|0   |1
   Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2008-04-08 10:04:33
   date||


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35858

[Bug other/35858] time/memory hog for large c++ source.

[pluto at agmk dot net]

--- Comment #7 from pluto at agmk dot net  2008-04-08 16:50 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
 We'll not be able to fix this for 4.3 (the regression is caused by a
 correctness
 fix), but 4.4 will have this param setting as default.

Can i safely set this parameter to zero for vendor gcc package?
Does the non-zero value fix some bugs or sth?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35858

[Bug other/35858] time/memory hog for large c++ source.

[pluto at agmk dot net]

--- Comment #1 from pluto at agmk dot net  2008-04-07 14:58 ---
Created an attachment (id=15439)
 -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15439action=view)
4.1 stats.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35858

[Bug other/35858] time/memory hog for large c++ source.

[pluto at agmk dot net]

--- Comment #2 from pluto at agmk dot net  2008-04-07 14:58 ---
Created an attachment (id=15440)
 -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15440action=view)
4.3 stats.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35858

[Bug other/35858] time/memory hog for large c++ source.

[pluto at agmk dot net]

--- Comment #3 from pluto at agmk dot net  2008-04-07 14:59 ---
Created an attachment (id=15441)
 -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15441action=view)
testcase for 4.3.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35858

[Bug other/35858] time/memory hog for large c++ source.

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-04-07 15:29 ---
Please try --param max-fields-for-field-sensitive=0


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35858

[Bug other/35858] time/memory hog for large c++ source.

[pluto at agmk dot net]

--- Comment #5 from pluto at agmk dot net  2008-04-07 20:25 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
 Please try --param max-fields-for-field-sensitive=0
 

it helps.

 TOTAL:  67.59   3.99   71.69 1220782 kB


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35858