On 03/06/12 10:20, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 08:04:12AM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 03/06/12 07:55, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
+ bb_regions = VEC_alloc (tm_region_p, heap, last_basic_block);
+ VEC_reserve (tm_region_p, heap, bb_regions, last_basic_block);
+ for (i = 0; i
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 08:04:12AM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 03/06/12 07:55, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> > + bb_regions = VEC_alloc (tm_region_p, heap, last_basic_block);
> > + VEC_reserve (tm_region_p, heap, bb_regions, last_basic_block);
> > + for (i = 0; i < last_basic_block; ++i)
> >
On 03/06/12 07:55, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> + bb_regions = VEC_alloc (tm_region_p, heap, last_basic_block);
> + VEC_reserve (tm_region_p, heap, bb_regions, last_basic_block);
> + for (i = 0; i < last_basic_block; ++i)
> +VEC_quick_insert (tm_region_p, bb_regions, i, NULL);
The reserve is red
On 03/05/12 12:47, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 03/05/2012 10:37 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
I thought there'd be a lot less overhead by callocing the value myself. Is the
overhead negligible?
Yes, it's negligible.
I can certainly make it a VEC in a follow up patch if you want, though I'll
c
On 03/05/2012 10:37 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> I thought there'd be a lot less overhead by callocing the value myself. Is
> the overhead negligible?
Yes, it's negligible.
> I can certainly make it a VEC in a follow up patch if you want, though I'll
> commit this now so I can at get Rainer and
On 03/05/12 11:08, Rainer Orth wrote:
Aldy Hernandez writes:
Torvald has a testcase from the STAMP benchmark that is showing a memory
corruption error after my fix to publication safety problems.
The problem is we're allocating a chunk of worklist memory of size
n_basic_blocks which changes w
On 03/05/12 11:16, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 03/05/2012 08:54 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
region_worklist =
(struct tm_region **) xcalloc (sizeof (struct tm_region *),
- n_basic_blocks + NUM_FIXED_BLOCKS + 2);
+ last_basic
On 03/05/2012 08:54 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>region_worklist =
> (struct tm_region **) xcalloc (sizeof (struct tm_region *),
> - n_basic_blocks + NUM_FIXED_BLOCKS + 2);
> + last_basic_block + NUM_FIXED_BLOCKS);
This is ok.
I w
Aldy Hernandez writes:
> Torvald has a testcase from the STAMP benchmark that is showing a memory
> corruption error after my fix to publication safety problems.
>
> The problem is we're allocating a chunk of worklist memory of size
> n_basic_blocks which changes with tail merge optimization and
Hi folks.
Torvald has a testcase from the STAMP benchmark that is showing a memory
corruption error after my fix to publication safety problems.
The problem is we're allocating a chunk of worklist memory of size
n_basic_blocks which changes with tail merge optimization and such. We
end up w
10 matches
Mail list logo
