public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "steven at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/34683] [4.3 Regression] Fortran FE generated IL pessimizes middle-end IL and analysis
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 13:56:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080108130823.3545.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-34683-14773@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>



------- Comment #32 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-01-08 13:08 -------
You are of course right that for this test case the bigger win is in the
algorithmic issues.

On the other hand, for compile time in general, the gcc_asserts are IMHO the
worst thing that happened to GCC since the introduction of the garbage
allocator ;-)  It is way too easy to write "gcc_assert (blah)" instead of "if
(blah)\nabort ();", and people don't realize how expensive these "cheap"
asserts are.

This would then be a nice project for the Wiki beginners projects pages,
perhaps: Audit the gcc_assert calls in small "inline" functions and see if
there is any measurable gain to win from removing some that don't make sense
(like e.g. the ones you identified in comment #30).

But that's not relevant for this bug report, of course :-)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34683


  parent reply	other threads:[~2008-01-08 13:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-01-05 23:51 [Bug tree-optimization/34683] New: compile-time problem with -fstrict-aliasing jaydub66 at gmail dot com
2008-01-06  0:37 ` [Bug tree-optimization/34683] " jaydub66 at gmail dot com
2008-01-06  0:55 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-06  6:47 ` jaydub66 at gmail dot com
2008-01-06  8:08 ` jaydub66 at gmail dot com
2008-01-06  9:09 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-06 10:08 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-06 10:35 ` [Bug fortran/34683] Fortran FE generated IL pessimizes middle-end IL and analysis rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-06 11:10 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-06 11:14 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-06 11:46 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-06 12:02 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-06 12:02 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-06 12:08 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-06 12:19 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-06 12:30 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-06 22:15 ` jaydub66 at gmail dot com
2008-01-06 22:24 ` [Bug middle-end/34683] [4.3 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-06 22:24 ` [Bug fortran/34683] " rguenther at suse dot de
2008-01-07 14:05 ` [Bug tree-optimization/34683] [4.3 Regression] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-07 15:00 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-07 15:20 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-07 16:18 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-07 16:41 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-07 17:28 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-08 10:18 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-08 10:27 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-08 12:18 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-08 12:22 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-08 12:31 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-08 12:41 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-08 12:57 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-08 13:02 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-08 13:56 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org [this message]
2008-01-08 16:50 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-08 21:36 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-09  1:09 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-09 10:32 ` jaydub66 at gmail dot com
2008-01-09 10:32 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2008-01-09 10:35 ` [Bug tree-optimization/34683] [4.3 Regression] SSA rewriting in the loop unroller causes quadratic behavior steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-10 15:05 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-10 15:29 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-10 16:00 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-10 17:57 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-10 18:05 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-10 18:08 ` [Bug tree-optimization/34683] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-10 18:24 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-10 22:19 ` jaydub66 at gmail dot com
2008-01-10 23:45 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-11 13:58 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-12  8:39 ` rakdver 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=20080108130823.3545.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).