On 1/28/07, Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
OK, attached is the preliminary hack I created some time ago. After
some changes, it now bootstraps, but I haven't tested it yet. I'm
passing it as an RFC.
This patch is hereby withdrawn.
Gr.
Steven
On 1/18/07, Richard Kenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I had thought of a hash table, too, but I couldn't figure out where to
> initialize and free it (i.e. where it is a "live" table, so to speak). For
> example, I don't know if this table would be required after gimplification,
> and I also d
> I had thought of a hash table, too, but I couldn't figure out where to
> initialize and free it (i.e. where it is a "live" table, so to speak). For
> example, I don't know if this table would be required after gimplification,
> and I also don't even know how GNAT translates its own representatio
On 1/18/07, Richard Kenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ada is the last user of the tree_exp->complexity field. Removing
> this field should reduce GCC's memory usage by about 5% on a 64 bit
> host. Could an Ada maintainer see if it possible to remove the use
> of this field? I would think it
> Ada is the last user of the tree_exp->complexity field. Removing
> this field should reduce GCC's memory usage by about 5% on a 64 bit
> host. Could an Ada maintainer see if it possible to remove the use
> of this field? I would think it shouldn't be too hard --
> TREE_COMPLEXITY is used only
Hello,
Ada is the last user of the tree_exp->complexity field. Removing this
field should reduce GCC's memory usage by about 5% on a 64 bit host.
Could an Ada maintainer see if it possible to remove the use of this
field? I would think it shouldn't be too hard -- TREE_COMPLEXITY is
used only ins
