http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
--- Comment #33 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-08
08:37:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #32)
Hi, guys
I have a couple of questions regarding the case.
i) What is the current status of the fix? is this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
--- Comment #28 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-04
09:30:19 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Feb 4 09:30:12 2013
New Revision: 195707
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195707
Log:
2013-02-04
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
--- Comment #25 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2013-02-01 08:48:32 UTC ---
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
--- Comment #24 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
--- Comment #26 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-01
10:10:17 UTC ---
With another patch to PTA we now are bottle-necked by the C fronted
in update_label_decls ;)
parser function body: 125.32 (43%) usr
alias
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
--- Comment #27 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-01
12:38:51 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Feb 1 12:38:45 2013
New Revision: 195646
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195646
Log:
2013-02-01
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-31
10:13:27 UTC ---
Ok, reverted. With n = 5 rest_of_handle_split_after_reload blows up
memory usage to 3.5GB for me ... With n = 4 I managed to complete
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
--- Comment #19 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-31
16:36:04 UTC ---
Created attachment 29317
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29317
kill dominator queries from domwalk
This patch kills dominator
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
--- Comment #20 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-31
16:52:28 UTC ---
Remains:
parser function body: 122.90 (35%) usr
tree PTA: 120.27 (34%) usr
TOTAL : 353.61
the rest is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
--- Comment #21 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-31
19:56:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
This patch kills dominator queries from domwalk, removing a quadratic
bottleneck
I introduced there. Do so by sorting
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
--- Comment #22 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-31
20:16:25 UTC ---
Author: steven
Date: Thu Jan 31 20:16:07 2013
New Revision: 195632
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195632
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
--- Comment #23 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-31
22:51:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
Created attachment 29317 [details]
kill dominator queries from domwalk
This patch kills dominator queries from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
--- Comment #24 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-31
23:22:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #23)
(In reply to comment #19)
Created attachment 29317 [details]
kill dominator queries from domwalk
This patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-30
13:50:04 UTC ---
All of the tree SSA incremental time is spent in computing the IDFs. With
a patch to cache IDF on def-blocks nothing is gained.
Unpatched, n =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-30
14:38:29 UTC ---
The following (old!?) idea helps though:
Index: gcc/tree-ssa-loop-manip.c
===
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-30
15:40:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
The following (old!?) idea helps though:
Index: gcc/tree-ssa-loop-manip.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2013-01-29 09:52:12 UTC ---
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
--- Comment #9 from Steven
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-29
14:22:56 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jan 29 14:22:47 2013
New Revision: 195541
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195541
Log:
2013-01-29
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-29
14:24:01 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jan 29 14:23:48 2013
New Revision: 195542
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195542
Log:
2013-01-29
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-28
09:45:06 UTC ---
label_visit () seems to collect recursively points_to bits over the predecessor
graph, thus using a quadratic amount of memory. It does so to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-28
10:04:46 UTC ---
Moving -points_to to a separate obstack might also help (performing
label_visit
in topological order we could then free -points_to once we have
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
--- Comment #9 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-28
23:34:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
With the patch from comment #7:
n=1000 6.18user 254976k maxresident
n=2000 16.76user 509184k maxresident
n=4000
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||alias
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
--- Comment #3 from Kangkook aixer77 at gmail dot com 2013-01-26 15:40:43 UTC
---
Hi, Richard
Thanks a lot for your advice. I will definitely try gcc 4.8 and let you know
about the result.
Btw, I also tested it from the 64-bit env. but
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
28 matches
Mail list logo
