https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #28 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Feb 25 15:49:34 2015
New Revision: 220974
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220974root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR debug/58315
* decl.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #27 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Alexandre Oliva from comment #26)
I had failed to measure peak memory use. It went down from more than 4.8G
to less than 460M (vs 380MB without debug info).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 23 Feb 2015, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #21 from Aldy Hernandez aldyh at redhat dot com ---
On 02/24/2015 12:39 AM, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
But yes, we have multiple such assignments to 'this' at the (possible
assembler) location of a single statement which of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #21)
Let me see if I understood this correctly. We need a DSE/DCE pass right
before var-tracking that would eliminate the redundant
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #23 from Aldy Hernandez aldyh at redhat dot com ---
On 02/24/2015 07:53 AM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #23)
Absolutely, _all_ of them are different for that matter. I think what
Richi was saying was that we could do a DSE type pass but take
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #26 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I had failed to measure peak memory use. It went down from more than 4.8G to
less than 460M (vs 380MB without debug info). Wheee!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #17 from Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org ---
BTW, if it isn't clear from the previous comment, the reason I believe this
test may be inefficient is because we have pages upon pages of:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #18 from Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 34852
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34852action=edit
reduced and indented testcase
Memory explosion occurs while compiling test03()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #15 from Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org ---
And annoyingly, even stuff as repetitive like this (notice, the same exact `di'
register, no offset or anything):
(note 11470254 74094 11470255 6371 (var_location
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #10 from Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
Hmm, I still see 2GB of memory - just checked with ulimit -v 200 where
4.7
succeeds but 4.8, 4.9 and 5 (r220758).
Thus,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #10)
Is your attached testcase ./cc1plus-ing unmodified?
With -O2 -g -fpermissive, yes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #13 from Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #12)
Just checked r220835 from today and it still takes more than 2GB of virtual
memory. (the compiler has checking enabled, but I doubt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Just checked r220835 from today and it still takes more than 2GB of virtual
memory. (the compiler has checking enabled, but I doubt that makes a
difference?)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.4 |4.8.5
---
24 matches
Mail list logo
