https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108500
--- Comment #23 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b955080a5ab8690902f7cc99a770f9c3da171d6f
commit r12-9256-gb955080a5ab8690902f7cc99a770f9c3da171d6f
Author: Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108500
--- Comment #22 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #20)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #14)
> > Thanks for the new testcase. With -O0 (and a --enable-checking=release
> > built compiler) this builds
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108500
--- Comment #21 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3c5154d0f0d2185b518465b264ca17fb7c60c1e8
commit r13-5808-g3c5154d0f0d2185b518465b264ca17fb7c60c1e8
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108500
--- Comment #20 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #14)
> Thanks for the new testcase. With -O0 (and a --enable-checking=release
> built compiler) this builds in ~11 minutes (on a Ryzen 9 7900X) with
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108500
--- Comment #19 from Richard Biener ---
I have split out the SRA issue to PR108653.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108500
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener ---
OK, thanks for the info. These kind of testcases are quite useful in that they
are not done for the purpose of breaking the compiler and they show algorithmic
deficiencies in GCC. GCC aims to be able to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108500
--- Comment #17 from dhekir at gmail dot com ---
To be honest, the "real" test case is very similar to the last one I sent: it's
a semi-generated code, with some initialization of the data in the beginning,
and then a lot of statements which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108500
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #14)
> Martin, can you look at the SRA issue? Do you want me to create a separate
> bugreport for this? The IL into SRA looks like
>
>:
> s2D.2755 = {};
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108500
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
To not look at "nothing" (after successful SRA it should indeed become almost
nothing) I've added a store to a volatile 'x' global variable to the end
of main:
...
s2 = f(s1,s2);
x = s2;
return 0;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108500
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108500
--- Comment #13 from dhekir at gmail dot com ---
Thank you very much for the work.
Running the attached file with `-O -finline-small-functions` does compile in
under 30 seconds on my computer.
However, when trying to compile the original
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108500
--- Comment #12 from dhekir at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 54386
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54386=edit
another test case, this time with 1M calls and structs as arguments
A more complex test case, which still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108500
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
And now the recursion is avoided completely. I'm going to backport this last
fix after some time and would be interested if that solves your original issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108500
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:97258480438db77e52f4b3947fa2c075b09d3fe1
commit r13-5617-g97258480438db77e52f4b3947fa2c075b09d3fe1
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108500
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13 Regression] -O|[11/12 Regression] -O
15 matches
Mail list logo
