On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 06:07:25PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 02/02/2016 09:59 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> >I wonder if it wouldn't be better to pass around some structure, containing
> >for the common case fixed size cache and perhaps fall back to hash_map if
> >there are more calls to cac
On 02/02/2016 09:59 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
I wonder if it wouldn't be better to pass around some structure, containing
for the common case fixed size cache and perhaps fall back to hash_map if
there are more calls to cache than that. Plus perhaps a recursion depth, so
that we avoid other path
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 12:50:39AM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 02/01/2016 09:34 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >On the following testcase we completely uselessly consume about 5.5GB
> >of RAM and lots of compile time. The problem is the code to avoid
> >exponential behavior of nonzero_bits/num_si
On 02/01/2016 09:34 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On the following testcase we completely uselessly consume about 5.5GB
of RAM and lots of compile time. The problem is the code to avoid
exponential behavior of nonzero_bits/num_sign_bit_copies on binary
arithmetics rtxes, which causes us to recurse ev
On 02/01/2016 01:34 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
On the following testcase we completely uselessly consume about 5.5GB
of RAM and lots of compile time. The problem is the code to avoid
exponential behavior of nonzero_bits/num_sign_bit_copies on binary
arithmetics rtxes, which causes us to recur
Hi!
On the following testcase we completely uselessly consume about 5.5GB
of RAM and lots of compile time. The problem is the code to avoid
exponential behavior of nonzero_bits/num_sign_bit_copies on binary
arithmetics rtxes, which causes us to recurse even when handling
of those rtxes is going t
