From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-479969-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 69100 invoked by alias); 10 Mar 2015 12:51:49 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 69014 invoked by uid 55); 10 Mar 2015 12:51:45 -0000
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <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 12:51:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.3.4
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: compile-time-hog, memory-hog
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
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:
Message-ID: <bug-44563-4-L9rYbB6Bo5@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-44563-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-44563-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2015-03/txt/msg01113.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44563

--- Comment #27 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
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.