On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 3:01 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 5:59 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 3:29 AM, Richard Guenther <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: >>> On Mon, 16 May 2011, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 7:17 AM, Richard Guenther <rguent...@suse.de> >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > The following patch improves hashing types by re-instantiating the >>>> > patch that makes us visit aggregate target types of pointers and >>>> > function return and argument types. This halves the collision >>>> > rate on the type hash table for a linux-kernel build and improves >>>> > WPA compile-time from 3mins to 1mins and reduces memory usage by >>>> > 1GB for that testcase. >>>> > >>>> > Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, SPEC2k6 >>>> > build-tested. >>>> > >>>> > Richard. >>>> > >>>> > (patch is reversed) >>>> > >>>> > 2011-05-16 Richard Guenther <rguent...@suse.de> >>>> > >>>> > * gimple.c (iterative_hash_gimple_type): Re-instantiate >>>> > change to always visit pointer target and function result >>>> > and argument types. >>>> > >>>> >>>> This caused: >>>> >>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49013 >>> >>> I have reverted the patch for now. >>> >> >> It doesn't solve the problem and I reopened: >> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49013 >> >> Your followup patches may have similar issues. >> > > I think you reverted the WRONG patch: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=173827
No, that was on purpose. > -- > H.J. >
