https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113575
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113575
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113575
--- Comment #15 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Robin Dapp :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:861997a9c7088da25ed4dc0bd339060ca063514f
commit r14-8457-g861997a9c7088da25ed4dc0bd339060ca063514f
Author: Robin Dapp
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113575
--- Comment #14 from Robin Dapp ---
Ok, running tests with the adjusted version and going to post a patch
afterwards.
However, during a recent run compiling insn-recog took 2G and insn-emit-7 as
well as insn-emit-10 required > 1.5G each.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113575
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Robin Dapp from comment #12)
> Created attachment 57209 [details]
> Tentative
>
> I tested the attached "fix". On my machine with 13.2 host compiler it
> reduced the build time for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113575
--- Comment #12 from Robin Dapp ---
Created attachment 57209
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57209=edit
Tentative
I tested the attached "fix". On my machine with 13.2 host compiler it reduced
the build time for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113575
--- Comment #11 from Matthias Klose ---
> Is increasing the available memory an option
> in the meantime or does this urgently require fixing?
there is a buffer of 500mb, but it's already using 3.5gb. That probably would
work building without
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113575
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
btw, -fno-var-tracking also greatly improves compile-time (but does nothing to
memory use). Compiling with -O1 reduces memory use to 300MB even when
var-tracking is enabled. So an option might be to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113575
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113575
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
My host compiler (x86_64, older trunk) uses "just" 800MB. 3.5GB looks like a
runaway? What uarch is your i586 compiler targeting?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113575
--- Comment #7 from Robin Dapp ---
Ok, I'm going to check.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113575
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
--- Comment #6 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113575
Robin Dapp changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113575
--- Comment #4 from Matthias Klose ---
same version, r14-8314-g29f931e39f2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113575
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||84402
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113575
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113575
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Which version is your host compiler?
17 matches
Mail list logo
