https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118032
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118032
--- Comment #36 from Filip Kastl ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #35)
> Shall we close this bug or keep it open for implementing greedy switch
> clustering for jump tables as suggested in comment #29 ?
I think that it would be bette
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118032
--- Comment #35 from Mark Wielaard ---
Shall we close this bug or keep it open for implementing greedy switch
clustering for jump tables as suggested in comment #29 ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118032
--- Comment #34 from Mark Wielaard ---
After r15-6598-g668cad04b16fc044142474232ac072fcc5f94433
("tree-switch-conversion: don't apply switch size limit on jump tables") the
build speeds up considerably:
https://builder.sourceware.org/buildbot/#/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118032
--- Comment #33 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Mark Wielaard :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:668cad04b16fc044142474232ac072fcc5f94433
commit r15-6598-g668cad04b16fc044142474232ac072fcc5f94433
Author: Mark Wielaard
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118032
--- Comment #32 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #31)
> (In reply to Filip Kastl from comment #30)
> > (In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #28)
> > > I haven't tried yet, but do you mean something like the follo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118032
--- Comment #31 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Filip Kastl from comment #30)
> (In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #28)
> > I haven't tried yet, but do you mean something like the following?
> > - /* Note: l + 1 is the number of cases
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118032
--- Comment #30 from Filip Kastl ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #28)
> I haven't tried yet, but do you mean something like the following?
> - /* Note: l + 1 is the number of cases of the switch. */
> - if (l + 1 > (unsigned) para
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118032
--- Comment #29 from ak at gcc dot gnu.org ---
We could also implement greedy switch clustering for jump tables I think. Right
now it's only for the switch bitmap clustering.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118032
--- Comment #28 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Filip Kastl from comment #24)
> One way to fix this would be to not apply the switch size limit on jump
> tables. Since finding jump tables is at least O(n^2), this could
> theoretically cause
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118032
--- Comment #27 from Andreas Schwab ---
Seems likely.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118032
--- Comment #26 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #25)
> 20241220: 2d 06:58:23
That seems like a nice speedup. Do you know what caused that?
Is the because r15-6223-g6dcfe8743134936db17ffdfd0a5102a87338f494 ("genre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118032
--- Comment #25 from Andreas Schwab ---
20241220: 2d 06:58:23
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118032
--- Comment #24 from Filip Kastl ---
Thanks for the preprocessed file!
I've looked at -ftime-report to see if the extra time was spent in switch
lowering and found out it is not! Apparently the change in behavior of switch
lowering has an effe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118032
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118032
--- Comment #23 from Mark Wielaard ---
Created attachment 59930
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59930&action=edit
preprocessed -E output of generated insn-attrtab.cc
Note that the generated insn-attrtab.cc file is 10M.
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118032
--- Comment #22 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #21)
Mark, could you upload preprocessed source for insn-attrtab.cc? Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118032
--- Comment #21 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #14)
> After about 20~25 minutes only insn-attrtab.cc is left (all other files
> mentioned in comment #13 have compiled successfully).
>
> /home/builder/worker/gcc-f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118032
--- Comment #20 from Filip Kastl ---
Hm, I don't see any memory leak. And if this was about memory leak in the
switch lowering pass I guess the issue would pop up on other architectures too
and someone would notice that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118032
--- Comment #19 from Filip Kastl ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #17)
> r15-6120-g56946c801a7cf3 is causing out-of-memory when compiling
> insn-attrtab.cc in a cross riscv64 build on 32-bit x86.
>
> https://build.opensuse.org/packa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118032
--- Comment #18 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment 59915
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59915&action=edit
add options to control the new ifcombine features
This may be useful to figure out whether it's ifcombine t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118032
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||memory-hog
--- Comment #17 from Andrea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118032
--- Comment #15 from Robin Dapp ---
> Based on earlier builds this file will take 2.5 to 3 hours to build (while
> all other cores are idle).
insn-attrtab.c doesn't consist of many functions so a split won't help. Given
that we have a number o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118032
--- Comment #15 from Robin Dapp ---
> Based on earlier builds this file will take 2.5 to 3 hours to build (while
> all other cores are idle).
insn-attrtab.c doesn't consist of many functions so a split won't help. Given
that we have a number o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118032
--- Comment #14 from Mark Wielaard ---
After about 20~25 minutes only insn-attrtab.cc is left (all other files
mentioned in comment #13 have compiled successfully).
/home/builder/worker/gcc-full-fedora-riscv/gcc-build/./prev-gcc/cc1plus -quiet
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118032
--- Comment #13 from Mark Wielaard ---
Just looking at a current build there are a couple of files that take 10+
minutes to build while nothing else is building:
gimple-match-10.cc
gimple-match-91.cc
insn-opinit.cc
lto-lang.cc
insn-attrtab.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118032
--- Comment #12 from Robin Dapp ---
It looks like the insn-recog split didn't help here but maybe of of the
mentioned commits slowed down the compilation of insn-attrtab.c?
Has anybody made progress with narrowing down the problem?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118032
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog
Summary|Bootstr
28 matches
Mail list logo
