Re: [PATCH] tree-optimization/113910 - huge compile time during PTA

2024-02-15 Thread Richard Biener
_word (should be word_s_). Fixing this turns >> out that hashing the population count doesn't help anything >> so I'm re-testing the following simpler variant, giving up on the >> cheap last 25% but solving the regression as well. >> >> Richard. >> >> From a76

Re: [PATCH] tree-optimization/113910 - huge compile time during PTA

2024-02-15 Thread Richard Sandiford
> cheap last 25% but solving the regression as well. > > Richard. > > From a76aebfdc4b6247db6a061e6395fd088a5694122 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Richard Biener > Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 12:33:13 +0100 > Subject: [PATCH] tree-optimization/113910 - huge compile time during

Re: [PATCH] tree-optimization/113910 - huge compile time during PTA

2024-02-14 Thread Richard Biener
m: Richard Biener Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 12:33:13 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] tree-optimization/113910 - huge compile time during PTA To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org For the testcase in PR113910 we spend a lot of time in PTA comparing bitmaps for looking up equivalence class members. This points to the v

[PATCH] tree-optimization/113910 - huge compile time during PTA

2024-02-14 Thread Richard Biener
For the testcase in PR113910 we spend a lot of time in PTA comparing bitmaps for looking up equivalence class members. This points to the very weak bitmap_hash function which effectively hashes set and a subset of not set bits. The following improves it by mixing that weak result with the populat