Toon Moene wrote:
Richard Guenther wrote:
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 8:07 AM, Toon Moene wrote:
Steven Bosscher wrote:
At least CPROP, LCM-PRE, and HOIST (i.e. all passes in gcse.c), and
variable tracking.
Are they covered by a --param ? At least that way I could teach them
to go
on in
Richard Guenther wrote:
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 8:07 AM, Toon Moene wrote:
Steven Bosscher wrote:
At least CPROP, LCM-PRE, and HOIST (i.e. all passes in gcse.c), and
variable tracking.
Are they covered by a --param ? At least that way I could teach them to go
on indefinitely ...
I
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 8:07 AM, Toon Moene wrote:
> Steven Bosscher wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>
>>> I don't even remember which other passes have this kind of cut-offs ..
>>
>> At least CPROP, LCM-PRE, and HOIST (i.e. all passes in gcse.c), and
>> v
Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
I don't even remember which other passes have this kind of cut-offs ..
At least CPROP, LCM-PRE, and HOIST (i.e. all passes in gcse.c), and
variable tracking.
Are they covered by a --param ? At least that wa
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> I don't even remember which other passes have this kind of cut-offs ..
At least CPROP, LCM-PRE, and HOIST (i.e. all passes in gcse.c), and
variable tracking.
Ciao!
Steven
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> Note that some optimizers (for example value-numbering) contain cut-offs
>> so that they are turned off for large functions as otherwise compile-time
>> issues appear as algorit
Richard Guenther wrote:
2009/11/14 Toon Moene :
However, my endeavour is to boldly go where no inliner has gone before, and
implement -falways-inline-functions-only-called-once, along the following
lines:
...
(Sugg. b. Rich. G.), because inlining functions that are only called once is
a
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> Note that some optimizers (for example value-numbering) contain cut-offs
> so that they are turned off for large functions as otherwise compile-time
> issues appear as algorithms are non-linear in the size of the function.
>
> So it might
2009/11/14 Toon Moene :
> Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
>> -fno-ipa-cp should work around your problem for time being.
>
> Indeed it did. Some figures:
>
> hlprog (the main forecast program):
>
> link time optimization time: 3:20 minutes
> top memory usage: 920 Mbyte
>
> Inliner report:
>
> Inli
Jan Hubicka wrote:
-fno-ipa-cp should work around your problem for time being.
Indeed it did. Some figures:
hlprog (the main forecast program):
link time optimization time: 3:20 minutes
top memory usage:920 Mbyte
Inliner report:
Inlined 764 calls, eliminated 226 functions, siz
Hi,
this is WIP patch to deal with the unreachable clones problem. It
basically renders the clones as unanalyzed cgraph nodes (but with still
body in) so IPA passes don't see them.
Honza
Index: cgraph.c
===
--- cgraph.c(revision
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
> > You don't happen to recall the bug number ?
>
> It might be related to PR 41735 which I noticed when looking at the
> generated assembly and trying to compare 4.5 to 4.4.
I fixed this bug today, so it might help. But it is related to COMDAT
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 8:19 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
> > Jan,
> >
> > I had some time to study the example I sent you a couple of weeks ago.
> >
> > According to visible inspection of the source code, there are 5 functions
> > (subroutines in Fortran parlance) that are called once:
> >
> > MAIN c
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 10:30 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
>> You don't happen to recall the bug number ?
>
> It might be related to PR 41735 which I noticed when looking at the
> generated assembly and trying to compare 4.5 to 4.4.
Yes indeed. Hon
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
> You don't happen to recall the bug number ?
It might be related to PR 41735 which I noticed when looking at the
generated assembly and trying to compare 4.5 to 4.4.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
Richard Guenther wrote:
I think the underlying issue is
phtask/41(-1) @0x7fd198c35100 availability:local 26416 time, 4268
benefit 4541 size, 880 benefit 480 bytes stack usage reachable body
local finalized inlinable
called by:
phcall/33(-1) @0x7fd198c33a00 availability:local 8281 time, 972
ben
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 8:19 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
> Jan,
>
> I had some time to study the example I sent you a couple of weeks ago.
>
> According to visible inspection of the source code, there are 5 functions
> (subroutines in Fortran parlance) that are called once:
>
> MAIN calls
> HLPROG call
17 matches
Mail list logo
