Memory usage of 4.2 versus 4.3 (at branchpoints)

2006-10-21 Thread Jan Hubicka
Hi, to give some perspective to the discussion on memory usage, I generated comparsion of 4.2 branchpoint to 4.3 branchpoint from logs of our memory tester. I would say it is quite pleasing to see that 4.3 is not really regression relative 4.2 in most tests like it was custom in previous releases,

Question about LTO dwarf reader vs. artificial variables and formal arguments

2006-10-21 Thread Steven Bosscher
Hello, I want to make gfortran produce better debug information, but I want to do it in a way that doesn't make it hard/impossible to read back in sufficient information for LTO to work for gfortran. I haven't really been following the whole LTO thing much, but if I understand correctly, the

Re: Question about LTO dwarf reader vs. artificial variables and formal arguments

2006-10-21 Thread Daniel Jacobowitz
On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 06:35:40PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote: > where _c is strlen("Hi World!"). From a user perspective, it would be better > to hide _c for the debugger because it is not something that the user had in > the original program. I have a patch to hide that parameter, that is,

Re: Question about LTO dwarf reader vs. artificial variables and formal arguments

2006-10-21 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I haven't really been following the whole LTO thing much, but if I understand > correctly, the goal is to reconstruct information about declarations from > DWARF information that we write out for those declarations. If that's the > case, I wonder h

Re: Question about LTO dwarf reader vs. artificial variables and formal arguments

2006-10-21 Thread Diego Novillo
Ian Lance Taylor wrote on 10/21/06 14:59: That is, we are not going to write out DWARF. We can't, because DWARF is not designed to represent all the details which the compiler needs to represent. What we are going to write out is a superset of DWARF. And in fact, if it helps, I think that we s

fwhole-program, -combine, several C sources ?

2006-10-21 Thread Basile STARYNKEVITCH
Dear All, For C source programs only, is there a scenario where several (eg two or more) C source files (ie passed *.c arguments) can be passed with the -fwhole-program flag and without the -combine flag? In other words, some medium sized (eg < 100 KLOC of C source in several *.c files) programs

Re: fwhole-program, -combine, several C sources ?

2006-10-21 Thread Andrew Pinski
On Sat, 2006-10-21 at 22:03 +0200, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote: > Dear All, > > For C source programs only, is there a scenario where several (eg two or > more) C source files (ie passed *.c arguments) can be passed with the > -fwhole-program flag and without the -combine flag? You can have a whol

Re: Question about LTO dwarf reader vs. artificial variables and formal arguments

2006-10-21 Thread Mark Mitchell
Diego Novillo wrote: Ian Lance Taylor wrote on 10/21/06 14:59: That is, we are not going to write out DWARF. We can't, because DWARF is not designed to represent all the details which the compiler needs to represent. What we are going to write out is a superset of DWARF. And in fact, if it he

Re: Question about LTO dwarf reader vs. artificial variables and formal arguments

2006-10-21 Thread Mark Mitchell
Steven Bosscher wrote: contains subroutine sub(c) character*10 c end subroutine end produces as a GIMPLE dump: sub (c, _c) { (void) 0; } where _c is strlen("Hi World!"). From a user perspective, it would be better to hide _c for the deb