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 middle-end/38584] [4.3/4.4 Regression] Inline heuristics run even at -O0
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 00:35:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081221003347.5328.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-38584-6642@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>



------- Comment #2 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-12-21 00:33 -------
Created an attachment (id=16951)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16951&action=view)
Avoid expensive inline heuristics at O0, and speed up add_alias_set_conflicts

This problem is always going to be, at the core, that add_alias_set_conflicts
is a quadratic problem in the number of stack variables.  But we can avoid
calculating this at -O0 for the inline heuristics but not for bin-packing stack
variables.  And we can also try hard to make the quadratic loop as cheap as
possible.

Without this patch, for compiling the full test case (at -O0) my ia64 host
spends 952s in "callgraph optimizations", 1903s in "inline heuristics", and
1013s in "expand" (total 3868s).

With the patch, the numbers are 1s in "callgraph optimizations", 0s in "inline
heuristics", and 587s in "expand" (total 588s).

Given the nature of this unholy test case, I think the patch is close to the
final form I intend to submit, at least algorithmically.  There are enough
areas left where we spend a lot more time...


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38584


  parent reply	other threads:[~2008-12-21  0:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-12-20 11:23 [Bug middle-end/38584] New: [4.3/4.4 Regression] Inline heuristics jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2008-12-20 11:35 ` [Bug middle-end/38584] " jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2008-12-20 15:52 ` [Bug middle-end/38584] [4.3/4.4 Regression] Inline heuristics run even at -O0 steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-12-21  0:35 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org [this message]
2008-12-21  8:06 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2008-12-29 22:31 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-12-30 13:37 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-12-30 13:38 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-01-01  0:56 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-01-01 13:43 ` stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com
2009-01-04  0:15 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-01-04  0:18 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-01-07  8:55 ` cnstar9988 at gmail dot com
2009-01-07  9:38 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-01-08  9:30 ` cnstar9988 at gmail dot com
2009-01-08 10:21 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-01-08 10:22 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-01-24 10:40 ` [Bug middle-end/38584] [4.3 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-08-04 12:49 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-04-20 14:32 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-04-20 14:32 ` rguenth 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=20081221003347.5328.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).