Re: memory benchmark of tuples branch

2006-10-27 Thread Diego Novillo
Mark Mitchell wrote on 10/27/06 12:25: Aldy Hernandez wrote: Does the tuples branch include the CALL_EXPR reworking from the LTO branch? No. Though, that is a similar global-touch-everything project, so hopefully whatever consensus develops from tuples will carry over. I feel the same abou

Re: memory benchmark of tuples branch

2006-10-27 Thread Mark Mitchell
Aldy Hernandez wrote: Does the tuples branch include the CALL_EXPR reworking from the LTO branch? No. Though, that is a similar global-touch-everything project, so hopefully whatever consensus develops from tuples will carry over. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3

Re: memory benchmark of tuples branch

2006-10-27 Thread Aldy Hernandez
> Does the tuples branch include the CALL_EXPR reworking from the LTO branch? No.

Re: memory benchmark of tuples branch

2006-10-27 Thread Richard Guenther
On 10/27/06, Aldy Hernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My vote is to merge into mainline sooner rather than later. However, it > is a big patch and affects just about every module in the compiler, so I > wouldn't want to barge in without getting some consensus first. I agree with you and Mark

Re: memory benchmark of tuples branch

2006-10-27 Thread Diego Novillo
Aldy Hernandez wrote on 10/27/06 09:35: How does this sound to y'all? Sounds good to me. I would add an additional memory savings check between 4 and 5.

Re: memory benchmark of tuples branch

2006-10-27 Thread Aldy Hernandez
> My vote is to merge into mainline sooner rather than later. However, it > is a big patch and affects just about every module in the compiler, so I > wouldn't want to barge in without getting some consensus first. I agree with you and Mark. What I'd like to do next is: 1. Merge mainline into

Re: memory benchmark of tuples branch

2006-10-27 Thread Diego Novillo
Aldy Hernandez wrote on 10/26/06 10:40: As we have hoped, every single function exhibits memory savings. Yay. Nice! I don't know if this merits merging into mainline, or if it's preferable to keep plodding along and convert the rest of the tuples. What do you guys think? Either way, I hav

Re: memory benchmark of tuples branch

2006-10-27 Thread Gerald Pfeifer
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, Aldy Hernandez wrote: > Having analyzed about 8000 functions taken from Diego's .i sandbox (includes > GCC files, spec files, and a potpourri of other .i files), here are the > average memory savings: > > -O0:-0.243863% > -O1:-0.977962% > -02:-0.9

Re: memory benchmark of tuples branch

2006-10-27 Thread Mark Mitchell
Aldy Hernandez wrote: I don't know if this merits merging into mainline, or if it's preferable to keep plodding along and convert the rest of the tuples. What do you guys think? Either way, I have my work cut out for me, though I believe the hardest part is over (FLW). I thinking merging as

memory benchmark of tuples branch

2006-10-26 Thread Aldy Hernandez
Hi folks. Now that the branch is bootstrapping with no regressions (C and C++ anyhow), I have run some memory benchmarks to make sure we're on the right path. So far I have only implemented GIMPLE_MODIFY_STMT which is the tuples counterpart of MODIFY_EXPR. To compare memory usage, I forced a gar