public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/44563] GCC uses a lot of RAM when compiling a large numbers of functions
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 13:19:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-44563-4-AzYhtpyXxc@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-44563-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44563
--- Comment #28 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to rguenther@suse.de from comment #27)
> On Tue, 10 Mar 2015, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44563
> >
> > Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
> >
> > What |Removed |Added
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
> >
> > --- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> > Or perhaps add split_block variant that uses the old bb for the second part
> > rather than the first one, and use it in the inliner?
>
> Seems like
>
> Index: gcc/tree-inline.c
> ===================================================================
> --- gcc/tree-inline.c (revision 221317)
> +++ gcc/tree-inline.c (working copy)
> @@ -4777,18 +4781,19 @@ static bool
> gimple_expand_calls_inline (basic_block bb, copy_body_data *id)
> {
> gimple_stmt_iterator gsi;
> + bool inlined = false;
>
> - for (gsi = gsi_start_bb (bb); !gsi_end_p (gsi); gsi_next (&gsi))
> + for (gsi = gsi_last_bb (bb); !gsi_end_p (gsi);)
> {
> gimple stmt = gsi_stmt (gsi);
> + gsi_prev (&gsi);
>
> if (is_gimple_call (stmt)
> - && !gimple_call_internal_p (stmt)
> - && expand_call_inline (bb, stmt, id))
> - return true;
> + && !gimple_call_internal_p (stmt))
> + inlined |= expand_call_inline (bb, stmt, id);
> }
>
> - return false;
> + return inlined;
> }
>
>
> fixes the issue as well as gsi stays valid over inline expansion if
> we advance it before that.
Funnily this makes us hit merge_blocks now via cleanup-tree-cfg
walking BBs in block-number order (and the inliner now allocating
blocks in a less "optimal" order...). This:
676 n = last_basic_block_for_fn (cfun);
677 for (i = NUM_FIXED_BLOCKS; i < n; i++)
678 {
679 bb = BASIC_BLOCK_FOR_FN (cfun, i);
680 if (bb)
681 retval |= cleanup_tree_cfg_bb (bb);
682 }
should work (for merging blocks) from entry to exit but after
new block assignment order now effectively works backwards :/
So the above doesn't really fix the issue but just shifts it elsewhere.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-03-10 13:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <bug-44563-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2010-12-12 23:55 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-13 0:58 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-13 1:00 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-13 1:07 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-13 1:17 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-13 1:47 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-13 13:22 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-17 0:08 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-07 0:22 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-09 9:36 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-09 11:33 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-09 15:26 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-09 15:36 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-10 4:55 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
2015-03-10 8:26 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-10 8:35 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2015-03-10 11:54 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-10 12:03 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-10 12:31 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-10 12:44 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-10 12:51 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2015-03-10 13:19 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2015-03-12 15:09 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-13 8:43 ` [Bug ipa/44563] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-13 8:47 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-13 8:53 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-13 8:55 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-16 0:07 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
2024-02-16 13:52 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-06-17 4:10 [Bug c/44563] New: " jvoss at altsci dot com
2010-06-17 4:14 ` [Bug tree-optimization/44563] " jvoss at altsci dot com
2010-06-17 10:37 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-06-17 10:45 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-06-17 12:28 ` jakub 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-44563-4-AzYhtpyXxc@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: link
Be 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).