On April 17, 2014 7:18:05 PM CEST, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> On April 17, 2014 6:03:13 PM CEST, Jan Hubicka
>wrote:
>> >> > > +
>> >> > > + /* At this stage we know that majority of GGC memory is
>> >reachable.
>> >> > > + Growing the limits prevents unnecesary invocation of
>GGC.
>> >*/
>> >
> On April 17, 2014 6:03:13 PM CEST, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >> > > +
> >> > > + /* At this stage we know that majority of GGC memory is
> >reachable.
> >> > > + Growing the limits prevents unnecesary invocation of GGC.
> >*/
> >> > > + ggc_grow ();
> >> > >ggc_collect ();
> >> >
> >> >
On April 17, 2014 6:03:13 PM CEST, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> > > +
>> > > + /* At this stage we know that majority of GGC memory is
>reachable.
>> > > + Growing the limits prevents unnecesary invocation of GGC.
>*/
>> > > + ggc_grow ();
>> > >ggc_collect ();
>> >
>> > Isn't the collect h
> > > +
> > > + /* At this stage we know that majority of GGC memory is reachable.
> > > + Growing the limits prevents unnecesary invocation of GGC. */
> > > + ggc_grow ();
> > >ggc_collect ();
> >
> > Isn't the collect here pointless? I see not in ENABLE_CHECKING, but
> > shouldn't
> > +
> > + /* At this stage we know that majority of GGC memory is reachable.
> > + Growing the limits prevents unnecesary invocation of GGC. */
> > + ggc_grow ();
> >ggc_collect ();
>
> Isn't the collect here pointless? I see not in ENABLE_CHECKING, but
> shouldn't this be abstract
On 04/11/2014 08:07 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
Hi,
while looking into -ftime-report, I noticed that ggc can take up to 10% of WPA
memory
while it does almost nothing: it is run just after streaming that explicitly
frees memory that becomes unreachable. The first GGC run usually saves at
most 1% of
On Fri, 11 Apr 2014, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> Hi,
> while looking into -ftime-report, I noticed that ggc can take up to 10% of
> WPA memory
> while it does almost nothing: it is run just after streaming that explicitly
> frees memory that becomes unreachable. The first GGC run usually saves at
>
