--- Comment #17 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-05 15:44 ---
Fixed.
--
spop at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED
--- Comment #16 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-05 15:42 ---
Subject: Bug 32540
Author: spop
Date: Mon Nov 5 15:42:30 2007
New Revision: 129901
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=129901
Log:
2007-11-05 Nick Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sebastia
--- Comment #15 from sebpop at gmail dot com 2007-11-03 05:54 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Exponential time behavior in PRE
And I just saw that there is already a patch for this bug attached
unfortunately to PR32575.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32540
--- Comment #14 from sebpop at gmail dot com 2007-11-03 05:26 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Exponential time behavior in PRE
With the patch, compile time goes down also for PR33922.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32540
--- Comment #13 from sebpop at gmail dot com 2007-11-03 05:19 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Exponential time behavior in PRE
> Yes, the heuristics can sometimes generate a very large number of
> copies to eliminate a single redundancy.
> This is jsut the way the standard PRE heuris
--- Comment #12 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-01 21:24
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Exponential time behavior in PRE
Yes, the heuristics can sometimes generate a very large number of
copies to eliminate a single redundancy.
This is jsut the way the standard PRE heur
--- Comment #11 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-01 21:16 ---
This isn't just a compile time hog, but sometimes (see PR33922) it creates many
times bigger and far slower code as well.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32540
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-01 15:26
---
That is, the following testcase:
int f(void);
void acceptloop_th(int *t, int options) {
if (f()) options |= 0x1 << 0;
if (f()) options |= 0x1 << 1;
if (f()) options |= 0x1 << 2;
if (f()) options |=
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de 2007-10-20 20:52 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Exponential time
behavior in PRE
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, dberlin at dberlin dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #8 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-20 20:49
> ---
> Subject: Re:
--- Comment #8 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-20 20:49 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Exponential time behavior in PRE
We may just want to disable PPRE of constants entirely :)
On 20 Oct 2007 10:14:53 -, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-20 10:14 ---
I guess we just compute all 2**26 constants that can end up at the conditional
store. And indeed, the number of 'Created value .*' in the dump matches this
(modulo some constant offset). This is PPRE at work, which
--- Comment #6 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-10-20 08:02 ---
Adding Danny to CC since this is not yet fixed.
--
tbm at cyrius dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from falk at debian dot org 2007-09-24 20:18 ---
As noted by Edvin Török, the bug is not fixed for the original test case
(although it is fixed for the small test case). A small test case that still
fails is
int f(void);
void acceptloop_th(int *t) {
int options = 0;
--- Comment #4 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-30 14:16 ---
Fixed
--
dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #3 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-30 14:15 ---
Subject: Bug 32540
Author: dberlin
Date: Sat Jun 30 14:15:26 2007
New Revision: 126149
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=126149
Log:
2007-06-30 Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Fix P
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32540
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-28 20:25 ---
Confirmed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
17 matches
Mail list logo
