[Bug middle-end/37448] [4.3 Regression] gcc 4.3.1 cannot compile big function

2009-01-24 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #27 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-24 10:20 --- GCC 4.3.3 is being released, adjusting target milestone. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/37448] [4.3 Regression] gcc 4.3.1 cannot compile big function

2008-10-11 Thread zadeck at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #26 from zadeck at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-11 23:40 --- Subject: Bug 37448 Author: zadeck Date: Sat Oct 11 23:39:21 2008 New Revision: 141067 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=141067 Log: 2008-10-11 Kenneth Zadeck [EMAIL PROTECTED] PR

[Bug middle-end/37448] [4.3 Regression] gcc 4.3.1 cannot compile big function

2008-10-07 Thread zadeck at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #24 from zadeck at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-08 02:53 --- Subject: Bug 37448 Author: zadeck Date: Wed Oct 8 02:52:28 2008 New Revision: 140960 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=140960 Log: 2008-10-07 Kenneth Zadeck [EMAIL PROTECTED] PR

[Bug middle-end/37448] [4.3 Regression] gcc 4.3.1 cannot compile big function

2008-10-07 Thread lucier at math dot purdue dot edu
--- Comment #25 from lucier at math dot purdue dot edu 2008-10-08 03:37 --- I'm sorry, I haven't been reading gcc-patches recently, but this is quite similar to my patch suggested here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-09/msg01270.html which also fixed the counters for bitmaps.

[Bug middle-end/37448] [4.3 Regression] gcc 4.3.1 cannot compile big function

2008-09-27 Thread zadeck at naturalbridge dot com
--- Comment #23 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2008-09-27 12:44 --- I do not believe honza. My measurements at -O0 on x86-42 are about 15 refs per insn. This is based on the following stats. (These can be reproduced using a patch that i am about to submit). ;;total ref

[Bug middle-end/37448] [4.3 Regression] gcc 4.3.1 cannot compile big function

2008-09-26 Thread hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #20 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-26 21:12 --- The testcase now compiles at -O2 in resonable time. Checking enabled compiler: CFG verifier : 15.02 ( 5%) usr 0.01 ( 0%) sys 15.13 ( 5%) wall 0 kB ( 0%) ggc df reaching defs : 7.57 (

[Bug middle-end/37448] [4.3 Regression] gcc 4.3.1 cannot compile big function

2008-09-26 Thread hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #21 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-26 22:15 --- I've just tested Kenny's df scan ref union patch. We still have over 2.2GB footprint that is not that much different from unpatched compiler. allocpool statistics now give some more useful data: df_scan_ref base

[Bug middle-end/37448] [4.3 Regression] gcc 4.3.1 cannot compile big function

2008-09-26 Thread hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #22 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-26 23:34 --- With Kenny's updated df patch and updated statistics I now get: Alloc-pool Kind Pools Elt size Allocated (elts) Peak (elts) Leak (elts)

[Bug middle-end/37448] [4.3 Regression] gcc 4.3.1 cannot compile big function

2008-09-25 Thread vmakarov at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #19 from vmakarov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-26 00:15 --- Subject: Bug 37448 Author: vmakarov Date: Fri Sep 26 00:14:30 2008 New Revision: 140674 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=140674 Log: 2008-09-25 Vladimir Makarov [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[Bug middle-end/37448] [4.3 Regression] gcc 4.3.1 cannot compile big function

2008-09-20 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37448

[Bug middle-end/37448] [4.3 Regression] gcc 4.3.1 cannot compile big function

2008-09-18 Thread hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #15 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-18 16:49 --- We seem to make nice progress on the testcase ;) Conversion to FUD would probably help here, but looking at the DF dumps, the testcase don't look like your average testcase showing DU/UD chain explosion. The

[Bug middle-end/37448] [4.3 Regression] gcc 4.3.1 cannot compile big function

2008-09-18 Thread hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #16 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-18 17:30 --- Subject: Bug 37448 Author: hubicka Date: Thu Sep 18 17:28:40 2008 New Revision: 140463 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=140463 Log: PR middle-end/37448 * ipa-reference.c

[Bug middle-end/37448] [4.3 Regression] gcc 4.3.1 cannot compile big function

2008-09-18 Thread hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #17 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-18 18:18 --- Subject: Bug 37448 Author: hubicka Date: Thu Sep 18 18:16:45 2008 New Revision: 140465 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=140465 Log: PR middle-end/37448 * ipa-reference.c

[Bug middle-end/37448] [4.3 Regression] gcc 4.3.1 cannot compile big function

2008-09-18 Thread hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #18 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-18 21:11 --- Hi, some stats on instruction counts and references Kenny asked about: At -O2: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/gcc-baseline/build-ada/prev-gcc$ grep (insn e.i.157r.outof_cfglayout | wc -l 307811 [EMAIL

[Bug middle-end/37448] [4.3 Regression] gcc 4.3.1 cannot compile big function

2008-09-17 Thread lucier at math dot purdue dot edu
--- Comment #13 from lucier at math dot purdue dot edu 2008-09-17 17:49 --- In the attached statistics file you find where this allocation overflowed Alloc-pool KindPools Allocated PeakLeak - df_scan_ref

[Bug middle-end/37448] [4.3 Regression] gcc 4.3.1 cannot compile big function

2008-09-17 Thread lucier at math dot purdue dot edu
--- Comment #14 from lucier at math dot purdue dot edu 2008-09-18 01:30 --- Created an attachment (id=16351) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16351action=view) detailed memory stats with checking enabled and long statistic counters I reran the test problem with

[Bug middle-end/37448] [4.3 Regression] gcc 4.3.1 cannot compile big function

2008-09-13 Thread hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #12 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-13 15:58 --- Subject: Bug 37448 Author: hjl Date: Sat Sep 13 15:57:26 2008 New Revision: 140345 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=140345 Log: 2008-09-13 Vladimir Makarov [EMAIL PROTECTED] PR

[Bug middle-end/37448] [4.3 Regression] gcc 4.3.1 cannot compile big function

2008-09-11 Thread hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #10 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-11 12:36 --- Subject: Bug 37448 Author: hubicka Date: Thu Sep 11 12:34:53 2008 New Revision: 140281 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=140281 Log: PR middle-end/37448 * tree-inline.c

[Bug middle-end/37448] [4.3 Regression] gcc 4.3.1 cannot compile big function

2008-09-11 Thread hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #11 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-11 12:40 --- Subject: Bug 37448 Author: hubicka Date: Thu Sep 11 12:38:57 2008 New Revision: 140284 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=140284 Log: PR middle-end/37448 * cgraph.c

[Bug middle-end/37448] [4.3 Regression] gcc 4.3.1 cannot compile big function

2008-09-10 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-10 08:10 --- On the trunk compile-time sky-rocketed there in building the cgraph. Honza, what's going on there - it doesn't seem to even finish ;) -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed

[Bug middle-end/37448] [4.3 Regression] gcc 4.3.1 cannot compile big function

2008-09-10 Thread hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-10 09:57 --- With ENABLE_CHECKING we spend ages checking that there are no duplicated edges in callgraph. Will fix it shortly. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37448

[Bug middle-end/37448] [4.3 Regression] gcc 4.3.1 cannot compile big function

2008-09-10 Thread hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-10 10:02 --- Now we spend eons in walking lexical blocks, since add_lexical_block called by inliner walks till end of the chain. Is the order of blocks important at all? (i.e. we don't insert them to proper place anyway, just

[Bug middle-end/37448] [4.3 Regression] gcc 4.3.1 cannot compile big function

2008-09-10 Thread hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-10 11:32 --- #0 0x0099c80d in ira_allocno_live_ranges_intersect_p (a1=0x33da8ae0, a2=0x34395120) at ../../gcc/ira-conflicts.c:535 #1 0x0099ff0e in coalesced_allocno_conflict_p (a1=0x34e221b0, a2=0x33da8ae0,

[Bug middle-end/37448] [4.3 Regression] gcc 4.3.1 cannot compile big function

2008-09-10 Thread hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-10 11:39 --- And at -O0 we still need about 2GB (because of dataflow leaks?), otherwise we seem fine compilation time wise garbage collection: 0.92 ( 3%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.93 ( 3%) wall 0 kB ( 0%) ggc

[Bug middle-end/37448] [4.3 Regression] gcc 4.3.1 cannot compile big function

2008-09-10 Thread vmakarov at redhat dot com
--- Comment #9 from vmakarov at redhat dot com 2008-09-10 21:16 --- There are 66K allocnos and 3M live ranges in function testsuite. Fixing the problem in IRA will take some time. I hope the patch will be ready in a few days. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37448