http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55135
--- Comment #22 from Steven Bosscher 2013-03-05
16:40:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> I have a fix proper for this problem in testing.
Posted for discussion here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-03/msg00193.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55135
--- Comment #21 from Steven Bosscher 2013-03-05
14:45:32 UTC ---
Author: steven
Date: Tue Mar 5 14:45:23 2013
New Revision: 196464
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196464
Log:
gcc/
PR c++/55135
* except
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55135
--- Comment #20 from Steven Bosscher 2013-03-01
21:05:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> Trading memory O(number of pseudos) with a large constant factor sounds
> like something waiting for trouble for other testcases ...
FWIW, for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55135
--- Comment #19 from Steven Bosscher 2013-03-01
19:13:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
I thought you had already done that, to handle attribute flatten for
bug 54146 (http://gcc.gnu.org/PR54146#c43). This test case doesn't use
the f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55135
--- Comment #18 from Jan Hubicka 2013-03-01 16:19:47
UTC ---
> I will take care of the early inlining problem. I wonder, you don't have
> oprofile of that, by any chance?
Aha, callee walking in update_inline_summary. Perhaps I will real
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55135
--- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka 2013-03-01 16:14:08
UTC ---
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55135
>
> --- Comment #12 from Steven Bosscher 2013-03-01
> 07:50:43 UTC ---
> Last night's compilation at -O1 with my hacks
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55135
--- Comment #16 from Steven Bosscher 2013-03-01
14:35:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> > - Queue up to-be-removed EH regions, instead of removing them one-by-one.
> > Removing them one at a time results in walking the list of EH re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55135
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener 2013-03-01
10:44:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Created attachment 29557 [details]
> Collected hacks to make the test case compile in reasonable time with -O0
>
> Patch does 2 things:
>
> -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55135
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55135
--- Comment #14 from Paolo Carlini 2013-03-01
09:35:41 UTC ---
Thanks Steven for analyzing / fixing this.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55135
--- Comment #13 from Steven Bosscher 2013-03-01
07:52:41 UTC ---
For reference, my numbers are for GCC 4.8 trunk r196182, configured
with release checking, on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, on AMD Opteron
Processor 8354 at 2200MHz.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55135
--- Comment #12 from Steven Bosscher 2013-03-01
07:50:43 UTC ---
Last night's compilation at -O1 with my hacks applied finished after
a whopping >6 hours. Top compile time consumers:
early inlining heuristics: 12409.92 (55%) usr
integ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55135
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog,
13 matches
Mail list logo
