Re: introduce --param max-vartrack-expr-depth

2011-07-20 Thread Michael Eager
On 07/20/2011 01:48 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 01:28:46PM -0700, Michael Eager wrote: On 07/20/2011 01:23 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 01:07:40PM -0700, Michael Eager wrote: I've run into a problem with this change when building microblaze-xilinx-elf.

Re: introduce --param max-vartrack-expr-depth

2011-07-20 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 01:28:46PM -0700, Michael Eager wrote: > On 07/20/2011 01:23 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 01:07:40PM -0700, Michael Eager wrote: > >>I've run into a problem with this change when building > >>microblaze-xilinx-elf. > >> > >>When compiling _divdi3.o, c

Re: introduce --param max-vartrack-expr-depth

2011-07-20 Thread Michael Eager
On 07/20/2011 01:23 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 01:07:40PM -0700, Michael Eager wrote: I've run into a problem with this change when building microblaze-xilinx-elf. When compiling _divdi3.o, cselib_expand_value_rtx_1 returns a huge rtx tree for variable _r1 when max_depth i

Re: introduce --param max-vartrack-expr-depth

2011-07-20 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 01:07:40PM -0700, Michael Eager wrote: > I've run into a problem with this change when building microblaze-xilinx-elf. > > When compiling _divdi3.o, cselib_expand_value_rtx_1 returns a huge rtx > tree for variable _r1 when max_depth is greater than 17. If -g is > specified

Re: introduce --param max-vartrack-expr-depth

2011-07-20 Thread Michael Eager
On 05/31/2011 09:13 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: On May 30, 2011, Bernd Schmidt wrote: On 05/30/2011 12:35 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: One of my patches for PR 48866 regressed guality/asm-1.c on x86_64-linux-gnu because what used to be a single complex debug value expression became a chain of de

Re: introduce --param max-vartrack-expr-depth

2011-06-02 Thread Alexandre Oliva
On Jun 2, 2011, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 06/02/2011 10:46 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 07:25:39PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >>> Such as this one... >> >> I'd appreciate if this could go in... > Go on then. Ok, here's what I've just installed. for gcc/ChangeLog fr

Re: introduce --param max-vartrack-expr-depth

2011-06-02 Thread Bernd Schmidt
On 06/02/2011 10:46 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 07:25:39PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> Such as this one... > > I'd appreciate if this could go in... Go on then. Bernd

Re: introduce --param max-vartrack-expr-depth

2011-06-02 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 07:25:39PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > Such as this one... I'd appreciate if this could go in... > Index: gcc/params.def > === > --- gcc/params.def.orig 2011-05-31 18:28:05.348070586 -0300 > +++ gcc/

Re: introduce --param max-vartrack-expr-depth

2011-06-01 Thread Alexandre Oliva
On Jun 1, 2011, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On May 31, 2011, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> On May 30, 2011, Bernd Schmidt wrote: >>> On 05/30/2011 12:35 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: One of my patches for PR 48866 regressed guality/asm-1.c on x86_64-linux-gnu because what used to be a single c

Re: introduce --param max-vartrack-expr-depth

2011-06-01 Thread Alexandre Oliva
On May 31, 2011, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On May 30, 2011, Bernd Schmidt wrote: >> On 05/30/2011 12:35 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >>> One of my patches for PR 48866 regressed guality/asm-1.c on >>> x86_64-linux-gnu because what used to be a single complex debug value >>> expression became a chai

Re: introduce --param max-vartrack-expr-depth

2011-05-31 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 01:13:31PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On May 30, 2011, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > > > On 05/30/2011 12:35 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > >> One of my patches for PR 48866 regressed guality/asm-1.c on > >> x86_64-linux-gnu because what used to be a single complex debug value

Re: introduce --param max-vartrack-expr-depth

2011-05-31 Thread Alexandre Oliva
On May 30, 2011, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 05/30/2011 12:35 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> One of my patches for PR 48866 regressed guality/asm-1.c on >> x86_64-linux-gnu because what used to be a single complex debug value >> expression became a chain of debug temps holding simpler expressions, >

Re: introduce --param max-vartrack-expr-depth

2011-05-30 Thread Bernd Schmidt
On 05/30/2011 12:35 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > One of my patches for PR 48866 regressed guality/asm-1.c on > x86_64-linux-gnu because what used to be a single complex debug value > expression became a chain of debug temps holding simpler expressions, > and this chain exceeded the default recursio

Re: introduce --param max-vartrack-expr-depth

2011-05-30 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 07:35:58AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > One of my patches for PR 48866 regressed guality/asm-1.c on > x86_64-linux-gnu because what used to be a single complex debug value > expression became a chain of debug temps holding simpler expressions, > and this chain exceeded th

introduce --param max-vartrack-expr-depth

2011-05-30 Thread Alexandre Oliva
One of my patches for PR 48866 regressed guality/asm-1.c on x86_64-linux-gnu because what used to be a single complex debug value expression became a chain of debug temps holding simpler expressions, and this chain exceeded the default recursion depth in resolving location expressions. This patch