From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id F23B9385843B; Wed, 27 Mar 2024 08:28:19 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org F23B9385843B DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1711528100; bh=9szu6DXHkRnMwqx+I39q8fUR3bZ1gVuECoDr4Wuxqp4=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=vFtPpAjQ7+2dPjDkKuHK12kNoZFvLBpVKmbIk/BD3ohXDXvg6/gmqZJ9Y+7jGrSPu bPgYwaD+Dag03EfKHn3rp+13g1388N8LU511WqweSTMFRei89U802uQ5p/qnxKF+mS L8CPrP6FimkdVwj75oi26mtG7wv4QyreUpkWnVnk= From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/114480] g++: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault signal terminated program cc1plus Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 08:28:09 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c++ X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.4.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: compile-time-hog, memory-hog, ra X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status cf_known_to_fail keywords everconfirmed cc cf_reconfirmed_on 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=3D114480 Richard Biener changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Known to fail| |14.0 Keywords| |ra Ever confirmed|0 |1 CC| |vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org Last reconfirmed|2024-03-26 00:00:00 |2024-03-27 --- Comment #10 from Richard Biener --- I see on x86_64-linux w/ release checking tree SSA rewrite : 76.99 ( 31%) 0.09 ( 5%) 77.11 ( = 31%) 96M ( 9%) integrated RA : 92.31 ( 37%) 0.15 ( 8%) 92.49 ( = 37%) 105M ( 10%) LRA create live ranges : 54.01 ( 22%) 0.00 ( 0%) 54.02 ( = 22%) 885k ( 0%) TOTAL : 246.34 1.88 248.43=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20 1039M 246.34user 2.02system 4:08.92elapsed 99%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 3287072maxresident)k 70416inputs+0outputs (110major+1229628minor)pagefaults 0swaps tree SSA rewrite is interesting, probably bitmap slowness and cache depende= nt. With -O1: tree PTA : 85.65 ( 14%) 0.21 ( 3%) 85.89 ( = 14%) 348M ( 2%) tree SSA rewrite : 76.05 ( 13%) 0.10 ( 1%) 76.14 ( = 12%) 96M ( 1%) tree SSA incremental : 181.52 ( 30%) 0.03 ( 0%) 181.50 ( = 30%) 10031k ( 0%) expand vars : 66.72 ( 11%) 0.00 ( 0%) 66.74 ( = 11%) 6132k ( 0%) expand : 64.33 ( 11%) 0.02 ( 0%) 64.39 ( = 11%) 172M ( 1%) TOTAL : 603.55 7.72 611.61=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20 19327M 603.55user 7.83system 10:11.78elapsed 99%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 19809792maxresident)k 21520inputs+0outputs (48major+5102514minor)pagefaults 0swaps definitely "interesting" testcase. The profile for -O0 shows IDF compute (that's SSA rewrite, a usual suspect) and other bits that might be interesting for the RA part. Samples: 1M of event 'cycles:u', Event count (approx.): 1332096582355=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 Overhead Samples Command Shared Object Symbol=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 24.78% 243663 cc1plus cc1plus [.] compute_idf 11.29% 115134 cc1plus cc1plus [.] make_hard_regno_de= ad 10.29% 104126 cc1plus cc1plus [.] process_bb_node_li= ves 5.29% 53680 cc1plus cc1plus [.] mark_pseudo_regno_= live 4.95% 50051 cc1plus cc1plus [.] mark_ref_dead 3.95% 40075 cc1plus cc1plus [.] update_allocno_pressure 2.73% 27977 cc1plus cc1plus [.] lra_create_live_ranges_ 2.48% 25136 cc1plus cc1plus [.] inc_register_press= ure 2.37% 24268 cc1plus cc1plus [.] update_pseudo_point 2.23% 21976 cc1plus cc1plus [.] mergesort 2.19% 22208 cc1plus cc1plus [.] make_object_dead 2.09% 21316 cc1plus cc1plus [.] sparseset_clear_bit 1.99% 20181 cc1plus cc1plus [.] bitmap_set_bit I'll note this was all tested on trunk, GCC 11 might behave even worse and quite some deep recursion issues have been fixed in newer releases.=