From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10111 invoked by alias); 26 Apr 2006 18:59:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 10081 invoked by uid 48); 26 Apr 2006 18:59:30 -0000 Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 18:59:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20060426185930.10080.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/26854] Inordinate compile times on large routines In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "amacleod at redhat dot com" 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 X-SW-Source: 2006-04/txt/msg02333.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Comment #12 from amacleod at redhat dot com 2006-04-26 18:59 ------- I have a patch to change the implementation of immediate uses forthcoming which, as a side effect, cleans up the operand scanner time in this file: on my x86 cross powerpc64: before patch: tree operand scan : 366.20 (31%) usr 2.59 (18%) sys 371.20 (31%) wall TOTAL :1177.57 14.10 1200.53 after patch: tree operand scan : 3.07 ( 0%) usr 1.72 (12%) sys 4.69 ( 1%) wall TOTAL : 829.50 14.13 866.35 I will also take a look at the out-of-ssa time and see what can be done. Part of the problem there is a conflict graph is being built with 650,000,000 conflicts... thats not condusive to fast compile times! Thats a lot of SSA_NAMe version of a base variable!!!! -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26854