From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6995 invoked by alias); 4 Nov 2005 20:10:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 6976 invoked by alias); 4 Nov 2005 20:10:11 -0000 Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 20:10:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20051104201011.6975.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/21883] [4.1 Regression] jump threading causing excessive code duplication In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "law at redhat dot com" X-SW-Source: 2005-11/txt/msg00683.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Comment #8 from law at redhat dot com 2005-11-04 20:10 ------- Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] jump threading causing excessive code duplication On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 18:56 -0700, Jeffrey A Law wrote: > On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 03:43 +0000, mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org > wrote: > > > > ------- Comment #5 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 03:43 ------- > > Downgraded to P2. Important, but not a showstopper. We really should have > > some kind of throttle, even if it's a bit simplistic. > We could easily put in a trivial throttle. If there's more than N > statements + phis, then the block is considered not threadable. Choose > N and it'll take about 5 minutes of work (and 3 hours to test :-) > > I'll throw out 50 as a very very very conservative number. If we're OK > with that number, then let's do it. > > We might be better around 10, but 50 ought to catch the pathological > cases without impacting much of anything. Here's what I actually checked in. This should be enough to allow us to delay final resolution of this PR till 4.2 (probably using Steven's prototype, which I like better). Bootstrapped and regression tested on i686-pc-linux-gnu. ------- Comment #9 from law at redhat dot com 2005-11-04 20:10 ------- Created an attachment (id=10148) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10148&action=view) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21883