From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 33E1638449C7; Sat, 4 May 2024 17:30:37 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 33E1638449C7 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1714843838; bh=shRKQQ/cyIxAGf7/nYVykcc2dodXa9IhzC+mvZ2gF3Q=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=q+l+/THbf/Dg5C9Q+9Agtq7iqehgguZrl6qe87BCPeIFQGelnY+rrlx7gZSkLop9w eKhK7LsKRjc8xtPEb0pKo390WZ7tNVGfK6Cho7KblDwr22hzn5aBgl1lV9GZ54HjJ8 fRnUY0fb+IGncAeh356naNxmNnd+ln8LH3v4LEcE= From: "segher at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/101523] Huge number of combine attempts Date: Sat, 04 May 2024 17:30:37 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: rtl-optimization X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: compile-time-hog, memory-hog X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: segher at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D101523 --- Comment #63 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to Sarah Julia Kriesch from comment #62) > (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #61) > > (In reply to Sarah Julia Kriesch from comment #60) > > > I have to agree with Richard. This problem has been serious for a lon= g time > > > but has been ignored by IBM based on distribution choices. > >=20 > > What? What does IBM have to do with this? Yes, they are my employer, = but > > what I decide is best for combine to do is not influenced by them *at a= ll* > > (except some times they want me to spend time doing paid work, distract= ing > > me from things that really matter, like combine!) > >=20 > Then, tell other reasons why my requests in the openSUSE bug report have > been rejected in the past, and this bug report has been open for 3 years. > Perhaps it is helpful to know that IBM has fixed memory issues in Postgre= SQL > (for openSUSE/upstream) with higher quality via my request with the suppo= rt > for Red Hat (and faster). Once again, I have no idea what you are talking about. It sounds like some complot theory? Exciting! I really have no idea what you are talking about. I recognise some of the words, but not enough to give me a handle on what you are on about. > > > Anyway, we want to live within the open source community without any = Linux > > > distribution priorities (especially in upstream projects like here). > >=20 > > No idea what that means either. > >=20 > There is a reason for founding the Linux Distributions Working Group at t= he > Open Mainframe Project (equality for all Linux Distributions on s390x). > SUSE, Red Hat and Canonical have been supporting this idea also (especial= ly > based on my own work experience at IBM and the priorities inside). And here I don't have any context either. > > > Segher, can you specify the failed test cases? Then, it should be pos= sible > > > to reproduce and improve that all. In such a collaborative way, we ca= n also > > > achieve a solution. > >=20 > > What failed test cases? You completely lost me. > >=20 > This one: > (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #57) > > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #56) > > PR101523 is a very serious problem, way way way more "P1" than any of t= he > > "my target was inconvenienced by some bad testcases failing now" "P1"s = there > > are now. Please undo this! They are in this PR. "See Also", top right corner in the headings. > (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #61) > > We used to do the wrong thing in combine. Now that my fix was reverted= , we > > still do. This should be undone soonish, so that I can commit an actual > > UNCSE > > implementation, which fixes all "regressions" (quotes, because they are= not!) > > caused by my previous patch, and does a lot more too. It also will all= ow us > > to remove a bunch of other code from combine, speeding up things a lot = more > > (things that keep a copy of a set if the dest is used more than once). = There > > has been talk of doing an UNCSE for over twenty years now, so annoying = me > > enough to get this done is a good result of this whole thing :-) > Your fixes should also work with upstream code and the used gcc versions = in > our/all Linux distributions. I recommend applying tests and merging your > fixes to at least one gcc version. Lol. No. Distributions have to sort out their own problems. I don't have a copy of an old version of most distros even; I haven't *heard* about the *existence* of most distros! I don't use a Linux distro on any of my own machines. And I care about some other OSes at least as much, btw. And not just because my employer cares a= bout some of those. > If you want to watch something about our reasons for creating a > collaboration between Linux distributions (and upstream projects), you > should watch my first presentation "Collaboration instead of Competition": > https://av.tib.eu/media/57010 >=20 > Hint: The IBM statement came from my former IBM Manager (now your CPO). CPO? What is a CPO? I don't think I have any? I do have an R2 somewhere, does that help?=