https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98426
--- Comment #15 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Matt Thompson from comment #14)
> Never mind. I'll send attachment to Jerry offline. It's too big for here.
Got it. It works quite well for our purposes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98426
--- Comment #14 from Matt Thompson ---
Never mind. I'll send attachment to Jerry offline. It's too big for here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98426
--- Comment #13 from Matt Thompson ---
Okay I have a new reproducer that I'll attach here. It uses the random names.
I see the same behavior:
IFX 2024.1:
Number of Modules | Build Time
- | --
10 | 0.100
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98426
--- Comment #12 from Matt Thompson ---
Jerry,
Actually, I took a look at my reproducer and it's not quite what I was wanting
(I made a mistake in the Jinja templates). I'm going to work on it now to fix
this up. And I'll look at adding the rando
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98426
--- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I am able to run your reproducer and I can see the increasing times as the
number of modules goes up. I am curious if you could randomize the subroutine
names? These appear fairly repetitive and I wonder if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98426
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98426
--- Comment #9 from Matt Thompson ---
Jerry,
I tried your patch, but it didn't seem to help my reproducer.
Stock GCC13:
Number of Modules | Build Time
- | --
10 | 0.336674
20 |2.34525
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98426
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Martin or Matt,
Can you test the following variation to see if you get better results.
return st;
}
retval = NULL;
if (c <= 0)
retval = find_symbol (st->left, name, module, generic);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98426
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-04-24
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98426
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98426
Matt Thompson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matthew.thompson at nasa dot
gov
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98426
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldot at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98426
--- Comment #3 from martin ---
Sorry for the noise, but as this gives big reductions in compilation time it is
quite important to me (and probably other big module based projects).
I just realised that I mixed up gfc_symtree->name and gfc_symtre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98426
--- Comment #2 from martin ---
I further tried to find out what the call to find_symbol (this is the call
which consumed the compilation time) is achieving in read_modules(). Even with
the accidentially wrong patch everything just seems to work (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98426
--- Comment #1 from martin ---
Created attachment 49846
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49846&action=edit
corrected patch
Comparison with c was wrong.
15 matches
Mail list logo
