Re: [rfc] Moving bbs back to pools

2007-06-08 Thread Zdenek Dvorak
Hello, > > The problem is, that it does not give any speedups (it is almost > > completely compile-time neutral for compilation of preprocessed > > gcc sources). I will check whether moving also edges to pools > > changes anything, but so far it does not seem very promising :-( > > Well, the ben

Re: [rfc] Moving bbs back to pools

2007-06-08 Thread Jan Hubicka
> Zdenek Dvorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > The problem is, that it does not give any speedups (it is almost > > completely compile-time neutral for compilation of preprocessed > > gcc sources). I will check whether moving also edges to pools > > changes anything, but so far it does not see

Re: [rfc] Moving bbs back to pools

2007-06-08 Thread Jan Hubicka
> Hello, > > as discussed in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-05/msg01133.html, > it might be a good idea to try moving cfg to alloc pools. The patch > below does that for basic blocks (each function has a separate pool > from that its basic blocks are allocated). At the moment, the patch

Re: [rfc] Moving bbs back to pools

2007-06-07 Thread Daniel Berlin
On 6/7/07, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/7/07, Zdenek Dvorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > > Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > Zdenek Dvorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > > The problem is, that it does not give any speedups (it is almost

Re: [rfc] Moving bbs back to pools

2007-06-07 Thread Richard Guenther
On 6/7/07, Zdenek Dvorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello, > Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Zdenek Dvorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > The problem is, that it does not give any speedups (it is almost > > > completely compile-time neutral for compilation of preprocess

Re: [rfc] Moving bbs back to pools

2007-06-07 Thread Daniel Berlin
On 6/7/07, Zdenek Dvorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello, > Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Zdenek Dvorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > The problem is, that it does not give any speedups (it is almost > > > completely compile-time neutral for compilation of preprocess

Re: [rfc] Moving bbs back to pools

2007-06-07 Thread Zdenek Dvorak
Hello, > Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Zdenek Dvorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > The problem is, that it does not give any speedups (it is almost > > > completely compile-time neutral for compilation of preprocessed > > > gcc sources). I will check whether moving

Re: [rfc] Moving bbs back to pools

2007-06-07 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Zdenek Dvorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > The problem is, that it does not give any speedups (it is almost > > completely compile-time neutral for compilation of preprocessed > > gcc sources). I will check whether moving also edges to pools >

Re: [rfc] Moving bbs back to pools

2007-06-07 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
Zdenek Dvorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The problem is, that it does not give any speedups (it is almost > completely compile-time neutral for compilation of preprocessed > gcc sources). I will check whether moving also edges to pools > changes anything, but so far it does not seem very promi

Re: [rfc] Moving bbs back to pools

2007-06-07 Thread Daniel Berlin
On 6/7/07, Zdenek Dvorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello, as discussed in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-05/msg01133.html, it might be a good idea to try moving cfg to alloc pools. The patch below does that for basic blocks (each function has a separate pool from that its basic blocks

[rfc] Moving bbs back to pools

2007-06-07 Thread Zdenek Dvorak
Hello, as discussed in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-05/msg01133.html, it might be a good idea to try moving cfg to alloc pools. The patch below does that for basic blocks (each function has a separate pool from that its basic blocks are allocated). At the moment, the patch breaks preco