On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 4:21 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Feb 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 1 Feb 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 02:14:20PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Looks like we cache the answer to maybe_constant_value (INTEGER_CST)
On Wed, 1 Feb 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Feb 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 02:14:20PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > > Looks like we cache the answer to maybe_constant_value (INTEGER_CST)
> > > which results in (-fmem-report):
> > >
> > > cp/const
On Wed, 1 Feb 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 02:14:20PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > Looks like we cache the answer to maybe_constant_value (INTEGER_CST)
> > which results in (-fmem-report):
> >
> > cp/constexpr.c:4814 (maybe_constant_value) 67108816:100.0%
On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 02:14:20PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> Looks like we cache the answer to maybe_constant_value (INTEGER_CST)
> which results in (-fmem-report):
>
> cp/constexpr.c:4814 (maybe_constant_value) 67108816:100.0%
> 10066310417: 0.0% ggc
>
> this can
Looks like we cache the answer to maybe_constant_value (INTEGER_CST)
which results in (-fmem-report):
cp/constexpr.c:4814 (maybe_constant_value) 67108816:100.0%
10066310417: 0.0% ggc
this can be improved trivially to
cp/constexpr.c:4817 (maybe_constant_value)