From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-356375-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 30888 invoked by alias); 12 May 2011 16:34:28 -0000
Received: (qmail 30800 invoked by uid 22791); 12 May 2011 16:34:27 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.7 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 12 May 2011 16:34:14 +0000
From: "andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug lto/48978] excessive hash table allocation for large lto build
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: lto
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-48978-4-GOURY0HAxF@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-48978-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-48978-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 16:39:00 -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
X-SW-Source: 2011-05/txt/msg01042.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48978

--- Comment #2 from Andi Kleen <andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org> 2011-05-12 16:16:19 UTC ---
I will try.

BTW this was a much larger test case (allyesconfig), the tarball I sent you
is a much more limited config.

Normally noone uses allyesconfig kernels (they barely boot), but they
are a good stress tester for the compiler.

Still I suspect the hash table expansion algorithms are not optimal.
If you're already in the GB range you shouldn't be doubling anymore...