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
next prev 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: 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).