From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 83AD83858431; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 13:11:53 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 83AD83858431
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/104581] [12 Regression] Huge compile-time regression
 building SPEC 2017 538.imagick_r with PGO
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 13:11:53 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: compile-time-hog, needs-bisection
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-104581-4-yrJ8ezaVwC@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-104581-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-104581-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 13:11:53 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D104581

--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Thu, 17 Feb 2022, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D104581
>=20
> --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> Ah, you're right.
> So, can't it instead of the quadratic walk just compare DF_INSN_LUID?
> If it isn't right after df_analyze and some insns could have been added in
> between, it would need to maintain the luids somehow (perhaps e.g. in the=
 way
> how we do it in tree-ssa-reassoc.cc, if we add insns, we must set their u=
id to
> either the previous or next insn's uid and then can do some IL walk, but =
only
> as long as the uid is the same, so unless everything in the bb changes it
> should be still cheap.

I think this "feature" needs to be better integrated with the=20
mode-switching data-flow.  It's too much bolted-on and thus has
unnecessarily high complexity.

In particular this is the initial local analysis run of mode-switching
where it just computes mode_in/mode_out of a BB (but the target hooks
do not have the pass meta data available).

The first calls to the hook are from=20

  if (targetm.mode_switching.entry && targetm.mode_switching.exit)
    {
      /* Split the edge from the entry block, so that we can note that
         there NORMAL_MODE is supplied.  */
      post_entry =3D split_edge (single_succ_edge (ENTRY_BLOCK_PTR_FOR_FN=20
(cfun)));
      pre_exit =3D create_pre_exit (n_entities, entity_map, num_modes);

which even runs before df_analyze () so if the DF walk would be
triggered there it definitely looks bogus.  I also see nothing
adding the chain problem (I dn't remember which ones are added by
default though).=