On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Caroline Tice <cmt...@google.com> wrote: > Here is my promised backport to the GCC 5 branch, for the patch below > that went into ToT last week. As with the previous patch, I've > verified that it fixes the problem, bootstraps and has no new > regression test failures. Is this ok to commit to the gcc-5-branch?
Ok. Thanks, Richard. > -- Caroline Tice > cmt...@google.com > > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Caroline Tice <cmt...@google.com> wrote: >> This patch fixes a compile-time regression that was originally >> introduced by the fix >> for PR64111, in GCC 4.9.3. One of our user's encountered this problem >> with a >> particular file, where the compile time (on arm) went from 20 seconds >> to 150 seconds. >> >> The fix in this patch was suggested by Richard Biener, who wrote the >> original fix for >> PR64111. I have verified that this patch fixes the compile time >> regression; I have bootstrapped >> the compiler with this patch; and I have run the regression testsuite >> (no regressions). >> Is this ok to commit to ToT? (I am also working on backports for >> gcc-5_branch and gcc-4_9-branch). >> >> -- Caroline Tice >> cmt...@google.com >> > gcc/ChangeLog: > > 2015-10-26 Caroline Tice <cmt...@google.com> > > (from Richard Biener) > * tree.c (int_cst_hasher::hash): Replace XOR with more efficient > call to iterative_hash_host_wide_int.
