--- Comment #16 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-23 10:13
---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNE
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de 2008-06-14 22:04 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] time/memory hog for large
c++ source.
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008, mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Richard --
>
> Is this still an issue, after your patch?
It's still 4 times slower an
--- Comment #14 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-13 21:53
---
Richard --
Is this still an issue, after your patch?
Thanks,
-- Mark
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-13 08:42
---
Subject: Bug 36498
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jun 13 08:41:45 2008
New Revision: 136744
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=136744
Log:
2008-06-13 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #12 from pluto at agmk dot net 2008-06-11 21:17 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Ah, but that test also reverts all followup patches, like
> (...)
> so, did you apply the patch in comment #7 on top of r135125 or on top
> of the branch head?
on top of the branch head (r136662)
--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-11 21:04
---
Ah, but that test also reverts all followup patches, like
2008-05-28 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR tree-optimization/36339
* tree-ssa-alias.c (set_initial_properties): Move pt_anything
--- Comment #10 from pluto at agmk dot net 2008-06-11 20:50 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Hm, the patch in comment #6 only affects the case where we have a union with
> subvars. Did you check that just reverting this patch brings us back to
> 580MB and 1min32?
yes, i've checked r13512
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-11 20:41 ---
Hm, the patch in comment #6 only affects the case where we have a union with
subvars. Did you check that just reverting this patch brings us back to
580MB and 1min32?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
--- Comment #8 from pluto at agmk dot net 2008-06-11 20:14 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Then the following should fix it.
>
> Index: tree-flow-inline.h
> ===
> --- tree-flow-inline.h (revision 135770)
> +++ tree-flow-inl
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-11 19:36 ---
Then the following should fix it.
Index: tree-flow-inline.h
===
--- tree-flow-inline.h (revision 135770)
+++ tree-flow-inline.h (working copy)
@@ -17
--- Comment #6 from pluto at agmk dot net 2008-06-11 19:27 ---
this patch causes regression.
r135125 | rguenth | 2008-05-09 21:19:33 +0200 (Fri, 09 May 2008) | 10 lines
2008-05-09 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTEC
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-11 15:20 ---
The offending function is
virtual bool hcScr::hescoreScr::init(Tcl_Interp*, hc::IAccessBase*,
vcm::vcmptr)
but probably only after inlining. The trunk is fine, as is compiling
with --param max-fields-for-field-sen
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-11 14:55 ---
Created an attachment (id=15750)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15750&action=view)
unincluded testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36498
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-11 14:46 ---
Eventually the fix for PR36154 may be the cause. Can you check backing out
2008-05-08 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR middle-end/36154
* tree-ssa-structalias.c (push_fields_onto_fieldstac
--- Comment #2 from pluto at agmk dot net 2008-06-11 14:10 ---
testcase tested with:
$ i486-gnu-linux-g++ -g0 -O2 -std=gnu++0x -fno-threadsafe-statics
-fPIC hescoreScr.ii -c
gdb report still the same backtrace:
(gdb) bt
#0 0x0066891b in set_bb_for_stmt ()
--- Comment #1 from pluto at agmk dot net 2008-06-11 14:05 ---
Created an attachment (id=15749)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15749&action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36498
16 matches
Mail list logo
