public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/32921] [4.3/4.4 Regression] Revision 126326 causes 12% slowdown Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 15:06:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20080502150519.5828.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-32921-682@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> ------- Comment #53 from rguenther at suse dot de 2008-05-02 15:05 ------- Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4 Regression] Revision 126326 causes 12% slowdown On Fri, 2 May 2008, mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > ------- Comment #52 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-02 14:16 ------- > Yes, the "perfect pass" problem is what concerns me too. For example, if we > try to do dynamic reordering of passes, or allow users to specify that, we have > to worry that, in practice, the compiler will crash or generate wrong code. > We'll have no good way of ever validating even a small set of the possible > combinations. True. Still if we don't have this ability to easily re-order passes we'll never know ;) So I still would like to have our pass-manager scripted, if it is only for development purposes of GCC. > Perhaps we need to make the passes fast, so we can run them more often? Or > weave some of them together, even though of course it's nice if each pass is > logically separate and does a single thing? Most of the cleanup passes are fast, and one of the most important things in my view is maintainability which helps to reduce possible wrong-code bugs. This of course is easier with passes that do one single thing. One thing we should consider is to keep more information around across passes to make passes simpler. For example VRP throws away range information - we could separate out jump threading if we didn't do that, likewise other passes could benefit from this information. FRE and PRE compute value numbers which are also thrown away. Richard. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32921
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-05-02 15:06 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 64+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2007-07-28 0:23 [Bug tree-optimization/32921] New: [4.3 " hjl at lucon dot org 2007-07-28 0:32 ` [Bug tree-optimization/32921] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-28 0:32 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-28 0:51 ` hjl at lucon dot org 2007-07-28 1:02 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-28 10:02 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-28 20:51 ` hjl at lucon dot org 2007-07-28 20:59 ` rguenther at suse dot de 2007-07-28 23:25 ` hjl at lucon dot org 2007-09-11 11:48 ` jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-07 15:17 ` hjl at lucon dot org 2007-10-07 15:17 ` hjl at lucon dot org 2007-10-07 15:19 ` hjl at lucon dot org 2007-10-10 17:48 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-17 16:14 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-17 16:19 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-17 16:59 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-17 17:41 ` dberlin at dberlin dot org 2007-10-17 21:22 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-18 11:45 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-18 20:55 ` hjl at lucon dot org 2007-10-19 11:26 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-19 12:28 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-19 12:40 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-19 15:36 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-19 16:28 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-19 22:13 ` hjl at lucon dot org 2007-10-20 4:21 ` patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-10-20 9:39 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-20 16:05 ` hjl at lucon dot org 2007-10-22 21:11 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-23 2:23 ` Joey dot ye at intel dot com 2007-10-23 20:29 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-23 20:31 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-24 12:23 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-24 15:02 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-24 15:18 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-24 15:19 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-24 23:15 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-25 8:55 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-25 10:06 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-25 11:02 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-25 11:07 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-14 16:53 ` [Bug tree-optimization/32921] [4.3/4.4 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-23 14:10 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-23 14:10 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-30 18:50 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-30 20:30 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-30 21:43 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-30 22:36 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-01 19:27 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-02 10:29 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-02 12:17 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-02 12:33 ` dnovillo at google dot com 2008-05-02 12:56 ` rguenther at suse dot de 2008-05-02 14:16 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-02 15:06 ` rguenther at suse dot de [this message] 2008-06-06 14:59 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-27 22:04 ` jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-08 15:41 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-24 10:22 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-31 14:27 ` [Bug tree-optimization/32921] [4.3 " bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-01-31 14:36 ` [Bug tree-optimization/32921] [4.3/4.4 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-02 19:17 ` pthaugen 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=20080502150519.5828.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: linkBe 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).