> Andi Kleen writes:
>
> Ping!
>
> This problem is still open, and afaik no better solution has been
> proposed. It is also a regression.
>
> Is it ok to commit if I rerun the tests and they pass?
OK.
Honza
Andi Kleen writes:
Ping!
This problem is still open, and afaik no better solution has been
proposed. It is also a regression.
Is it ok to commit if I rerun the tests and they pass?
> An auto generated program with a 6.4mio line asm statement gave
> with 4.7 and 4.8:
>
> xxx.c:6400017:1: intern
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 07:19:10PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > So I am fine with the cutoff. We may need to add more overflow guards (we
> > already have quite few for time) that makes me wonder if all this should
> > not be
> > done all in saturating arithmetic now when it can be done theoretic
On 21/02/13 15:59, Andi Kleen wrote:
That doesn't sound enough, unless there is already code out there
that respects this count. 1000 at 4 bytes per instruction is only
4k. More that small enough for the rest of the compiler to think
that it could jump around such blocks cheaply.
I think a li
> So I am fine with the cutoff. We may need to add more overflow guards (we
> already have quite few for time) that makes me wonder if all this should not
> be
> done all in saturating arithmetic now when it can be done theoretically with
> one
> C++ class?
Sounds like a good idea, although I d
> > This was not for jump shortening, but the inliner heuristics.
> >
> > In the worst case we could separate the two, would be a larger
> > patch though.
>
> Actually it's already separated, I don't affect the jump shortening
> at all. Only the inliner code adds the limit.
>
> So it would depen
> This was not for jump shortening, but the inliner heuristics.
>
> In the worst case we could separate the two, would be a larger
> patch though.
Actually it's already separated, I don't affect the jump shortening
at all. Only the inliner code adds the limit.
So it would depend whether 1000 * w
> That doesn't sound enough, unless there is already code out there
> that respects this count. 1000 at 4 bytes per instruction is only
> 4k. More that small enough for the rest of the compiler to think
> that it could jump around such blocks cheaply.
>
> I think a limit of 1M or more might be
On 21/02/13 14:05, Andi Kleen wrote:
An auto generated program with a 6.4mio line asm statement gave
with 4.7 and 4.8:
xxx.c:6400017:1: internal compiler error: in account_size_time, at
ipa-inline-analysis.c:601
The problem is that the inliner counts the number of lines in the asm
statement and
An auto generated program with a 6.4mio line asm statement gave
with 4.7 and 4.8:
xxx.c:6400017:1: internal compiler error: in account_size_time, at
ipa-inline-analysis.c:601
The problem is that the inliner counts the number of lines in the asm
statement and multiplies that with a weight. With th
10 matches
Mail list logo
