--- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-13 22:18
---
Mark as dup of a single "vartracking is slow with VTA" bug.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 41371 ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41264
--- Comment #12 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-14 06:14 ---
Yeah, I'm sorry, I attached the testcase to the wrong bug report as said in
comment #5. It was about combinatoric explosion not about slow var-tracking.
I should probably have deleted the attachment from here.
--
--- Comment #11 from aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-14 05:01 ---
Subject: Bug 41264
Author: aoliva
Date: Wed Oct 14 05:01:24 2009
New Revision: 152749
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=152749
Log:
PR debug/41343
PR debug/41447
PR debug/41264
PR debug/41338
*
--- Comment #10 from aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-13 20:08 ---
This means the testcase labeled pr41264-test.c was totally unrelated to the
original bug report :-( Oh well... I'll add the other testcase to my ongoing
efforts to speed up var-tracking. I'm working on that on two
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-13 12:07 ---
It's not fixed.
variable tracking : 480.87 (90%) usr 1.42 (54%) sys 482.57 (90%) wall
22699 kB ( 5%) ggc
it's even got slower.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #8 from aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-12 20:01 ---
Fixed
--
aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #7 from aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-12 18:59 ---
Subject: Bug 41264
Author: aoliva
Date: Mon Oct 12 18:58:38 2009
New Revision: 152681
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=152681
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR debug/41343
PR debug/41447
PR debug/41264
PR
--- Comment #6 from aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-06 04:38 ---
The patch that introduces debug temps fixes this problem:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-10/msg00112.html
--
aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #5 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-03 23:22 ---
Hmpf, sorry, I think this bug report might be about something else. The
exponential explosion is actually tracked in PR41343. I've attached the
testcase there.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41264
--- Comment #4 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-03 22:50 ---
Created an attachment (id=18699)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18699&action=view)
pr41264-test.c
Compile this with
% ./cc1 -O2 -g pr41264-test.c
and cry.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_b
--- Comment #3 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-03 22:49 ---
Found a nice testcase for exponential explosion. It's reduced from tree.c
(make_vector_type) when building with -fprofile-generate. The testcase needs
simply "-O2 -g" and takes a ridiculous amount of > 4GB RAM.
It's t
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-04 14:02 ---
Memory usage doubles.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Key
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41264
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-04 13:53 ---
Created an attachment (id=18494)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18494&action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41264
15 matches
Mail list logo
