> Figures? Tree checking is not cheap with GCC 4.x either.
Here are mine (Athlon64 2.4 GHz, 1 GB, c,c++,objc,obj-c++,java,fortran,ada):
gcc version 4.3.0 20061103 (experimental)
assert,runtime (aka release): 115 min
assert,runtime,misc:176 min
asser
> I can sympathize with that, I have a slightly different problem. Right
> now there are some java test that time-out 10x on solaris2.10. I run four
> passes of the testsuite with different options each time, so that 40
> timeouts. (This is without any extra RTL checking turned on.) At 5
> minu
Maybe in another six years cpu improvements will outpace gcc bootstrap
times enough to reconsider.
We'll have 60 cores per CPU, and 1 minute after invoking "make" we'll be
cursing how much it takes for insn-attrtab.c to finish compiling. :-)
Paolo
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> > I object.
>
> Me too.
>
> I'm a big proponent of testing, but I do think there should be some
> bang/buck tradeoff. (For example, we have tests in the GCC testsuite
> that take several minutes to run -- but never fail. I doubt these tests
> are ac
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Nov 7, 2006, at 3:48 PM, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
> > Perhaps we could take a second look at this decision? The average
> > system has increased in speed many times since then. (Although
> > sometimes I feel like bootstrapping time has increased at an even
> Because it takes a LONG time.
Figures? Tree checking is not cheap with GCC 4.x either.
--
Eric Botcazou
On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 11:36:00PM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> The parallel that is causing the ICE is a store with update RTL insn.
> It seems like we should detect that and reach into the parallel and
> grab the actual store insn. I'll look into adding that.
I'm testing the patch below. It f
On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 17:30 -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> >
> > Bootstrap off the trunk on powerpc-linux fails currently with:
> >
> > /cvs/gcc-svn/trunk/gcc/libgcov.c: In function =E2=80=98__gcov_execl=E2=80=
> > =99:
> > /cvs/gcc-svn/trunk/gcc/libgcov.c:796: internal compiler error: RTL check:
David Edelsohn wrote:
Kaveh R GHAZI writes:
Kaveh> I tried many years ago and Mark objected:
Kaveh> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2000-10/msg00756.html
Kaveh> Perhaps we could take a second look at this decision? The average system
Kaveh> has increased in speed many times since then. (Al
On Nov 7, 2006, at 4:40 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
Kaveh R GHAZI writes:
Kaveh> I tried many years ago and Mark objected:
Kaveh> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2000-10/msg00756.html
Kaveh> Perhaps we could take a second look at this decision? The
average system
Kaveh> has increased in s
On Nov 7, 2006, at 4:40 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
Kaveh R GHAZI writes:
Kaveh> I tried many years ago and Mark objected:
Kaveh> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2000-10/msg00756.html
Kaveh> Perhaps we could take a second look at this decision? The
average system
Kaveh> has increased in s
> Kaveh R GHAZI writes:
Kaveh> I tried many years ago and Mark objected:
Kaveh> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2000-10/msg00756.html
Kaveh> Perhaps we could take a second look at this decision? The average system
Kaveh> has increased in speed many times since then. (Although sometimes I
On Nov 7, 2006, at 3:48 PM, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
Perhaps we could take a second look at this decision? The average
system
has increased in speed many times since then. (Although sometimes I
feel
like bootstrapping time has increased at an even greater pace than
chip
improvements over the
>
> On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>
> > > But note this is with RTL checking enabled (--enable-checking=rtl).
> >
> > Can anyone refresh my memory: why is RTL checking disabled on the mainline?
> > Eric Botcazou
>
> I tried many years ago and Mark objected:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > But note this is with RTL checking enabled (--enable-checking=rtl).
>
> Can anyone refresh my memory: why is RTL checking disabled on the mainline?
> Eric Botcazou
I tried many years ago and Mark objected:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2000-10/msg0
On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 11:40:01PM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > But note this is with RTL checking enabled (--enable-checking=rtl).
>
> Can anyone refresh my memory: why is RTL checking disabled on the mainline?
Because it takes a LONG time.
Janis
> But note this is with RTL checking enabled (--enable-checking=rtl).
Can anyone refresh my memory: why is RTL checking disabled on the mainline?
--
Eric Botcazou
>
> Bootstrap off the trunk on powerpc-linux fails currently with:
>
> /cvs/gcc-svn/trunk/gcc/libgcov.c: In function =E2=80=98__gcov_execl=E2=80=
> =99:
> /cvs/gcc-svn/trunk/gcc/libgcov.c:796: internal compiler error: RTL check: e=
> xpected code 'set' or 'clobber', have 'parallel' in adjacent_me
Bootstrap off the trunk on powerpc-linux fails currently with:
/cvs/gcc-svn/trunk/gcc/libgcov.c: In function ‘__gcov_execl’:
/cvs/gcc-svn/trunk/gcc/libgcov.c:796: internal compiler error: RTL check:
expected code 'set' or 'clobber', have 'parallel' in adjacent_mem_locations, at
config/rs6000/rs
19 matches
Mail list logo
