public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "giovannibajo at libero dot it" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/14179] [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] out of memory Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 18:50:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20040917185027.20452.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20040217171044.14179.debora.j.estey@lmco.com> ------- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-09-17 18:50 ------- It looks like we do not destroy and recreate initializers in reshape_init, elements are moved from the old CONSTRUCTOR to the new one. Instead, while investigating the code, I noticed this in reshape_init: /* Loop through the array elements, gathering initializers. */ for (index = size_zero_node; *initp && (!max_index || !tree_int_cst_lt (max_index, index)); index = size_binop (PLUS_EXPR, index, size_one_node)) { We are constructing a *different* INTEGER_CST for each index, and we never use it. This generates a lot of garbage. I do not know if it is enough to switch to HOST_WIDE_INT only, we may want to handle arrays larger than HWI (e.g. crosscompiling from 16bit to 32bit). My solution for mainline is to use HWI whenever possible, and falling back to trees when the indices get too high. Mark, does this make sense? Dunno if this will be acceptable for 3.3 and 3.4 too, but let's have this fixed in mainline, as a start. -- What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |giovannibajo at libero dot |dot org |it Status|NEW |ASSIGNED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14179
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-09-17 18:50 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2004-02-17 17:10 [Bug c++/14179] New: " debora dot j dot estey at lmco dot com 2004-02-17 17:15 ` [Bug c++/14179] " debora dot j dot estey at lmco dot com 2004-02-17 17:25 ` debora dot j dot estey at lmco dot com 2004-02-17 17:52 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-02-17 18:00 ` [Bug c++/14179] [3.3/3.4/3.5 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-02-17 18:10 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-03-08 23:08 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-06-07 3:25 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-09-15 14:27 ` [Bug c++/14179] [3.3/3.4/4.0 " giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-09-15 16:30 ` mark at codesourcery dot com 2004-09-17 18:50 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it [this message] 2004-09-18 13:10 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-09-20 23:05 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-09-21 21:12 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-09-21 22:50 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-09-21 23:46 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-09-22 0:36 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-09-22 0:38 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-09-22 0:43 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-09-22 0:54 ` mark at codesourcery dot com 2004-09-22 13:51 ` bonzini at gnu dot org 2004-09-22 15:33 ` mark at codesourcery dot com 2004-09-22 15:39 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-09-22 15:43 ` paolo dot bonzini at polimi dot it 2004-09-22 15:54 ` mark at codesourcery dot com 2004-09-22 15:56 ` paolo dot bonzini at polimi dot it 2004-09-23 0:02 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-09-23 0:16 ` mark at codesourcery dot com 2004-09-23 1:00 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-09-23 1:37 ` mark at codesourcery dot com 2004-09-24 16:02 ` bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-09-24 16:06 ` bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-09-24 16:53 ` mark at codesourcery dot com 2004-09-24 18:53 ` bonzini at gnu dot org 2004-09-24 18:54 ` [Bug c++/14179] array parsing could be made faster bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-09-25 0:50 ` [Bug c++/14179] [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] " giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-10-26 16:11 ` [Bug c++/14179] [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] out of memory while parsing array with many initializers debora dot j dot estey at lmco dot com 2004-10-26 16:14 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-27 15:43 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-12-23 12:35 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-24 2:23 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-12-24 7:07 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-21 5:03 ` [Bug c++/14179] [3.3/3.4/4.0/4.1 " mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-03 22:44 ` debora dot j dot estey at lmco dot com 2005-07-08 1:43 ` [Bug c++/14179] [3.4/4.0/4.1 " mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-25 1:39 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-27 16:14 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20040917185027.20452.qmail@sourceware.org \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).