Re: [PATCH] allocate combine.c:LOG_LINKS in an alloc_pool

2011-04-05 Thread Richard Guenther
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Nathan Froyd wrote: > On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 09:01:20PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 8:49 PM, Nathan Froyd >> wrote: >> > This patch does just what $SUBJECT suggests.  Benefits: >> > >> > - Smaller data structures in combine; >> > - Fre

Re: [PATCH] allocate combine.c:LOG_LINKS in an alloc_pool

2011-04-04 Thread Nathan Froyd
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 09:01:20PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote: > On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 8:49 PM, Nathan Froyd wrote: > > This patch does just what $SUBJECT suggests.  Benefits: > > > > - Smaller data structures in combine; > > - Freeing LOG_LINKS becomes much easier (don't have to transfer > >  

Re: [PATCH] allocate combine.c:LOG_LINKS in an alloc_pool

2011-04-04 Thread Steven Bosscher
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 8:49 PM, Nathan Froyd wrote: > This patch does just what $SUBJECT suggests.  Benefits: > > - Smaller data structures in combine; > - Freeing LOG_LINKS becomes much easier (don't have to transfer >  everything to the INSN_LIST free list); > > Potential downsides: > > - Less s

[PATCH] allocate combine.c:LOG_LINKS in an alloc_pool

2011-04-04 Thread Nathan Froyd
This patch does just what $SUBJECT suggests. Benefits: - Smaller data structures in combine; - Freeing LOG_LINKS becomes much easier (don't have to transfer everything to the INSN_LIST free list); Potential downsides: - Less sharing of INSN_LIST nodes might mean more cache thrashing. Bootstr