public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "hp at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/37916] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] SSA names causing register pressure; unnecessarily many simultaneously "live" names. Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 01:31:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-37916-4-mwQ6Jkyzps@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-37916-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37916 --- Comment #20 from Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-03-11 01:31:14 UTC --- (In reply to comment #19) > Random thought on this PR: With a scheduler description, -fschedule-insns > -fsched-pressure may help. That theory should be testable by compiling for e.g. a x86_64 target; see comment #12, but to answer your question... > Is there a reason why there is no scheduler description? Yes. For a while, there was nothing to schedule. ...except for CPUs in systems a cache, where it helps to schedule to avoid RaW hazards. ...and then pipelined variants came, with other hazards to schedule (to avoid bubbles, no mips1-type madness). ...but then, I noticed that scheduling with the "new" scheduler wasn't supported for CC0 targets. ...which later was either fixed, or just a plain misunderstanding (cf. m68k/cf.md). ...and when checking the cycle-correct simulator, I found that there weren't many cycles to schedule away, hence a fair amount of work for no apparent gain, at least for the intended purpose of insn scheduling. There you go, the reasons in a nutshell. And while there's still a possibility that it's a pragmatic solution (modulo #c12), it doesn't strike me as requiring a scheduler to be the Right Thing to do for a fix to this problem. (Though from a general GCC maintenance perspective, automatically defaulting to a trivial scheduler might be a good idea.)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-03-11 1:31 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top [not found] <bug-37916-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> 2011-03-05 0:18 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-11 1:31 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org [this message] 2011-06-27 15:18 ` [Bug tree-optimization/37916] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-13 15:37 ` [Bug tree-optimization/37916] [4.5/4.6/4.7/4.8 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-02 13:55 ` [Bug tree-optimization/37916] [4.6/4.7/4.8 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-12 15:18 ` [Bug tree-optimization/37916] [4.7/4.8/4.9 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-06-12 13:49 ` [Bug tree-optimization/37916] [4.7/4.8/4.9/4.10 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-12-19 13:44 ` [Bug tree-optimization/37916] [4.8/4.9/5 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-06-23 8:28 ` [Bug tree-optimization/37916] [4.8/4.9/5/6 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-06-26 20:19 ` [Bug tree-optimization/37916] [4.9/5/6 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-06-26 20:39 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-05-04 12:32 ` [Bug tree-optimization/37916] [8/9/10/11/12 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-05-14 9:45 ` [Bug tree-optimization/37916] [9/10/11/12 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-06-01 8:04 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-05-27 9:33 ` [Bug tree-optimization/37916] [10/11/12/13 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-06-28 10:29 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-06-14 4:56 ` [Bug tree-optimization/37916] [10/11/12/13/14 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-06-14 5:11 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-07-07 10:29 ` [Bug tree-optimization/37916] [11/12/13/14 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2008-10-25 20:07 [Bug tree-optimization/37916] New: [4.0 " hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:26 ` [Bug tree-optimization/37916] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 " 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=bug-37916-4-mwQ6Jkyzps@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \ --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).