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


  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: link
Be 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).