https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114480
--- Comment #26 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 8 Apr 2024, douglas.boffey at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114480
>
> --- Comment #25 from Douglas Boffey ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114480
--- Comment #25 from Douglas Boffey ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #24)
> dumpbin /headers executable.exe
...
C0 size of stack reserve
1000 size of stack commit
...
Hope this helps.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114480
--- Comment #24 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 8 Apr 2024, douglas.boffey at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114480
>
> --- Comment #23 from Douglas Boffey ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114480
--- Comment #23 from Douglas Boffey ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #22)
> Note we're using -Wl,--stack,12582912 when linking the GCC executables, I
> wonder
> if the reporter can verify the segfaulting executables have the correct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114480
--- Comment #22 from Richard Biener ---
Note we're using -Wl,--stack,12582912 when linking the GCC executables, I
wonder
if the reporter can verify the segfaulting executables have the correct stack
size set?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114480
--- Comment #21 from Alexander Monakov ---
It is possible to reduce gcc_qsort workload by improving the presorted-ness of
the array, but of course avoiding quadratic behavior would be much better.
With the following change, we go from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114480
--- Comment #20 from Alexander Monakov ---
(note that if you uninclude the testcase and compile with -fno-exceptions it's
much faster)
On the smaller testcase from comment 14, prune_unused_phi_nodes invokes
gcc_qsort 53386 times. There are two
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114480
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114480
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, clang is quite quick with -O0 (8s, 1GB ram) but with -O1 uses 18GB ram and
8 minutes compile-time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114480
--- Comment #17 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e7b7188b1cf8c174f0e890d4ac279ff480b51043
commit r14-9767-ge7b7188b1cf8c174f0e890d4ac279ff480b51043
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114480
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 57849
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57849=edit
patch for expand
Interestingly this patch for RTL expansion, more specifically
add_scope_conflicts, only slows
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114480
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114480
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 57829
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57829=edit
smaller testcase
Smaller testcase, shows the same compile-time issue at -O0. At -O1 it's a lot
less bad but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114480
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114480
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0bad303944a1d2311c07d59912b4dfa7bff988c8
commit r14-9701-g0bad303944a1d2311c07d59912b4dfa7bff988c8
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114480
--- Comment #11 from Vladimir Makarov ---
My finding is that RA is not a problem for GCC speed with -O1 and up.
RA in -O0 does really consume a big portion of GCC compiler time. The
biggest part of RA in -O0 is actually spent in life
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114480
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114480
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It compiles OK with GCC 11.4.0 on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, it just takes a very
long time. I think you probably just ran out of memory or stack space.
-ftime-report shows:
Time variable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114480
--- Comment #8 from Douglas Boffey ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> Just to check what options are you using passing to gcc?
Using the default options:
g++ -o test-poly a-test-poly.ii
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114480
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
the code does compile for x86_64-linux-gnu on the trunk (though very slowly).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114480
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Just to check what options are you using passing to gcc?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114480
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
remove_unreachable_eh_regions_worker has a deep recusive which could cause
issues on host with limited stack space.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114480
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|1 |0
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114480
Douglas Boffey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||douglas.boffey at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114480
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-03-26
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114480
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Douglas Boffey from comment #1)
> Unable to add attachment.
try compressing it first.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114480
--- Comment #1 from Douglas Boffey ---
Unable to add attachment.
27 matches
Mail list logo
