From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15716 invoked by alias); 10 Jan 2007 19:48:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 15641 invoked by uid 48); 10 Jan 2007 19:47:59 -0000 Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:48:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20070110194759.15640.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-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-01/txt/msg00881.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #25 from amacleod at redhat dot com 2007-01-10 19:47 ------- There were numerous factors in the mainline speedup of SSA->normal, including a massive rewrite, but there are a couple of big wins that are backportable, and were in fact considered. It was just that they were too late in stage 3 at the time: I don't remember which one(s) affected this test case the most. live range speedup: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-08/msg00895.html TER speedup http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-08/msg00896.html this one was applied later, and may or may not make any difference whatsoever. I changes the coalesce list from a linked list to a hash table. I seem to recall only one test case it affected. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-11/msg01515.html -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26854