Re: Benchmarks of v2 (was Re: [PATCH 0/5] RFC: Overhaul of diagnostics (v2))

2015-11-13 Thread David Malcolm
On Wed, 2015-10-14 at 11:00 +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 5:32 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > > On Thu, 2015-09-24 at 10:15 +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 2:25 AM, David Malcolm wrote: > >> > On Wed,

Re: Benchmarks of v2 (was Re: [PATCH 0/5] RFC: Overhaul of diagnostics (v2))

2015-10-22 Thread David Malcolm
On Mon, 2015-10-19 at 16:51 +0200, Michael Matz wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, 16 Oct 2015, David Malcolm wrote: > > > This fixes much of the bloat seen for influence.i when sending ranges > > through for every token. > > Yeah, I think that's on the right track. Thanks. > > This was with 8 bits

Re: Benchmarks of v2 (was Re: [PATCH 0/5] RFC: Overhaul of diagnostics (v2))

2015-10-19 Thread Michael Matz
Hi, On Fri, 16 Oct 2015, David Malcolm wrote: > This fixes much of the bloat seen for influence.i when sending ranges > through for every token. Yeah, I think that's on the right track. > This was with 8 bits allocated for packed ranges (which is probably > excessive, but it makes debugging

Re: Benchmarks of v2 (was Re: [PATCH 0/5] RFC: Overhaul of diagnostics (v2))

2015-10-16 Thread David Malcolm
On Wed, 2015-10-14 at 11:00 +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 5:32 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > > On Thu, 2015-09-24 at 10:15 +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 2:25 AM, David Malcolm wrote: > >> > On Wed,

Re: Benchmarks of v2 (was Re: [PATCH 0/5] RFC: Overhaul of diagnostics (v2))

2015-10-14 Thread Richard Biener
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 5:32 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > On Thu, 2015-09-24 at 10:15 +0200, Richard Biener wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 2:25 AM, David Malcolm wrote: >> > On Wed, 2015-09-23 at 15:36 +0200, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> On Wed, Sep 23,

Re: Benchmarks of v2 (was Re: [PATCH 0/5] RFC: Overhaul of diagnostics (v2))

2015-10-14 Thread Michael Matz
Hi, On Wed, 14 Oct 2015, Richard Biener wrote: > The compile-time and memory-usage impact for the adhocloc at every token > patchkit is quite big. Remember that gaining 1% in compile-time is hard > and 20-40% memory increase for influence.i looks too much. Yes. OTOH the compile time and

Benchmarks of v2 (was Re: [PATCH 0/5] RFC: Overhaul of diagnostics (v2))

2015-10-13 Thread David Malcolm
On Thu, 2015-09-24 at 10:15 +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 2:25 AM, David Malcolm wrote: > > On Wed, 2015-09-23 at 15:36 +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Michael Matz wrote: > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > On