public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug other/52391] New: [4.7 regression] genattrtab almost 5X slower for m68k than in 4.6 and earlier releases
@ 2012-02-26 23:08 mikpe at it dot uu.se
2012-02-27 9:32 ` [Bug other/52391] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (14 more replies)
0 siblings, 15 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: mikpe at it dot uu.se @ 2012-02-26 23:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52391
Bug #: 52391
Summary: [4.7 regression] genattrtab almost 5X slower for m68k
than in 4.6 and earlier releases
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
AssignedTo: unassigned@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: mikpe@it.uu.se
Building a gcc-4.7 cross to m68k-linux takes almost twice as long as it takes
for earlier releases, and most of the slowdown comes from genattrtab taking
almost 5 times longer.
Here's some numbers for build times and genattrtab times for the 4 latest gcc
versions (--target=m68k-linux --enable-languages=c --enable-checking=release,
non-parallel "make", on a 2.4GHz C2Q6600):
gcc-4.4-20120221:
genattrtab: 2:13.31
total: 9m17s
gcc-4.5-20120223:
genattrtab: 1:48.17
total: 9m10s
gcc-4.6-20120224:
genattrtab: 1.44.05
total: 9m14s
gcc-4.7-20120225:
genattrtab: 8:25.99
total: 16m21s
The genattrtab times are as reported by /usr/bin/time on Fedora 14, i.e.
minutes:seconds.fraction.
I haven't measured other target build times in detail, but my gut feeling is
that they're not nearly as bad as these, so it might be an issue with the m68k
target specifically or perhaps cc0 targets in general.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug other/52391] [4.7 regression] genattrtab almost 5X slower for m68k than in 4.6 and earlier releases 2012-02-26 23:08 [Bug other/52391] New: [4.7 regression] genattrtab almost 5X slower for m68k than in 4.6 and earlier releases mikpe at it dot uu.se @ 2012-02-27 9:32 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-27 10:48 ` [Bug bootstrap/52391] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ` (13 subsequent siblings) 14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-02-27 9:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52391 Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed| |2012-02-27 Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0 Ever Confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-02-27 09:31:49 UTC --- There were not many changes to genattrtab vs. GCC 4.6 - can you profile it and report differences? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/52391] [4.7 regression] genattrtab almost 5X slower for m68k than in 4.6 and earlier releases 2012-02-26 23:08 [Bug other/52391] New: [4.7 regression] genattrtab almost 5X slower for m68k than in 4.6 and earlier releases mikpe at it dot uu.se 2012-02-27 9:32 ` [Bug other/52391] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-02-27 10:48 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-27 20:44 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ` (12 subsequent siblings) 14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-02-27 10:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52391 Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |build Target| |m68k-linux Priority|P3 |P4 Component|other |bootstrap Host| |x86_64-*-* Build| |x86_64-*-* --- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-02-27 10:47:38 UTC --- Cross from sth like x86_64 I assume. m68k is not primary/secondary. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/52391] [4.7 regression] genattrtab almost 5X slower for m68k than in 4.6 and earlier releases 2012-02-26 23:08 [Bug other/52391] New: [4.7 regression] genattrtab almost 5X slower for m68k than in 4.6 and earlier releases mikpe at it dot uu.se 2012-02-27 9:32 ` [Bug other/52391] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-27 10:48 ` [Bug bootstrap/52391] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-02-27 20:44 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-27 21:52 ` mikpe at it dot uu.se ` (11 subsequent siblings) 14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-02-27 20:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52391 Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org, | |rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-02-27 20:06:03 UTC --- Looks to be http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-08/msg01181.html aka http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178387 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/52391] [4.7 regression] genattrtab almost 5X slower for m68k than in 4.6 and earlier releases 2012-02-26 23:08 [Bug other/52391] New: [4.7 regression] genattrtab almost 5X slower for m68k than in 4.6 and earlier releases mikpe at it dot uu.se ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2012-02-27 20:44 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-02-27 21:52 ` mikpe at it dot uu.se 2012-02-27 23:04 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org ` (10 subsequent siblings) 14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: mikpe at it dot uu.se @ 2012-02-27 21:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52391 --- Comment #4 from Mikael Pettersson <mikpe at it dot uu.se> 2012-02-27 21:40:21 UTC --- My bisection identified that: in r178386 genattrtab timings are comparable to gcc-4.6, in r178387 genattrtab got 8.4 times slower, and in r178388 genattrtab improved to being "only" 5 times slower than 4.6. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/52391] [4.7 regression] genattrtab almost 5X slower for m68k than in 4.6 and earlier releases 2012-02-26 23:08 [Bug other/52391] New: [4.7 regression] genattrtab almost 5X slower for m68k than in 4.6 and earlier releases mikpe at it dot uu.se ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2012-02-27 21:52 ` mikpe at it dot uu.se @ 2012-02-27 23:04 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-27 23:05 ` mikpe at it dot uu.se ` (9 subsequent siblings) 14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: steven at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-02-27 23:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52391 Steven Bosscher <steven at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|WAITING |NEW --- Comment #5 from Steven Bosscher <steven at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-02-27 22:54:34 UTC --- Confirmed with a cross from x86_64-linux to m68k-linux. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/52391] [4.7 regression] genattrtab almost 5X slower for m68k than in 4.6 and earlier releases 2012-02-26 23:08 [Bug other/52391] New: [4.7 regression] genattrtab almost 5X slower for m68k than in 4.6 and earlier releases mikpe at it dot uu.se ` (4 preceding siblings ...) 2012-02-27 23:04 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-02-27 23:05 ` mikpe at it dot uu.se 2012-02-27 23:16 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org ` (8 subsequent siblings) 14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: mikpe at it dot uu.se @ 2012-02-27 23:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52391 --- Comment #6 from Mikael Pettersson <mikpe at it dot uu.se> 2012-02-27 23:03:00 UTC --- Top-most lines from gprof profile of genattrtab @ r178388: Flat profile: Each sample counts as 0.01 seconds. % cumulative self self total time seconds seconds calls s/call s/call name 67.71 437.11 437.11 138244364 0.00 0.00 simplify_and_tree 22.16 580.15 143.04 532054774 0.00 0.00 attr_equal_p 6.49 622.06 41.91 1753529513 0.00 0.00 rtx_equal_p 2.23 636.47 14.41 78398171 0.00 0.00 simplify_or_tree 0.99 642.88 6.41 2169340 0.00 0.00 simplify_test_exp 0.24 644.41 1.53 15087810 0.00 0.00 compute_alternative_mask 0.12 645.20 0.79 2105645 0.00 0.00 attr_rtx ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/52391] [4.7 regression] genattrtab almost 5X slower for m68k than in 4.6 and earlier releases 2012-02-26 23:08 [Bug other/52391] New: [4.7 regression] genattrtab almost 5X slower for m68k than in 4.6 and earlier releases mikpe at it dot uu.se ` (5 preceding siblings ...) 2012-02-27 23:05 ` mikpe at it dot uu.se @ 2012-02-27 23:16 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-27 23:35 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ` (7 subsequent siblings) 14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: steven at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-02-27 23:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52391 --- Comment #7 from Steven Bosscher <steven at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-02-27 23:07:00 UTC --- Created attachment 26767 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26767 Diff between insn-attrtab.c for r178386 and r178387. The diff is huge. Diffstat: insn-attrtab.c |57850 ++++++++------------------------------------------------- 1 file changed, 8396 insertions(+), 49454 deletions(-) So insn-attrtab.c is much smaller, but generating it takes much longer. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/52391] [4.7 regression] genattrtab almost 5X slower for m68k than in 4.6 and earlier releases 2012-02-26 23:08 [Bug other/52391] New: [4.7 regression] genattrtab almost 5X slower for m68k than in 4.6 and earlier releases mikpe at it dot uu.se ` (6 preceding siblings ...) 2012-02-27 23:16 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-02-27 23:35 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-28 0:38 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org ` (6 subsequent siblings) 14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-02-27 23:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52391 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-02-27 23:16:09 UTC --- Yeah, before that the huge conditions wouldn't be optimized, because the SYMBOL_REFs in them wouldn't rtx_equal_p even when they had the same strings. The question is if the test optimization can be improved, but in any case this doesn't look like a very important regression, it is much more important how fast is the insn-attrtab.c code than how long it takes to generate it. The former is used for all compilations, the latter only once (or 3 times for bootstrap) during gcc build. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/52391] [4.7 regression] genattrtab almost 5X slower for m68k than in 4.6 and earlier releases 2012-02-26 23:08 [Bug other/52391] New: [4.7 regression] genattrtab almost 5X slower for m68k than in 4.6 and earlier releases mikpe at it dot uu.se ` (7 preceding siblings ...) 2012-02-27 23:35 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-02-28 0:38 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-28 9:02 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org ` (5 subsequent siblings) 14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: steven at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-02-28 0:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52391 Steven Bosscher <steven at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |steven at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #9 from Steven Bosscher <steven at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-02-28 00:13:29 UTC --- Well, we do seem to go a bit to extremes to simplify an expression: #2212 0x0000000000407445 in simplify_test_exp (exp=0x78f010, insn_code=0, insn_index=65) at ../../trunk/gcc/genattrtab.c:2595 #2213 0x0000000000406f8f in simplify_test_exp (exp=0x78f390, insn_code=0, insn_index=65) at ../../trunk/gcc/genattrtab.c:2506 #2214 0x0000000000407445 in simplify_test_exp (exp=0x78f010, insn_code=0, insn_index=65) at ../../trunk/gcc/genattrtab.c:2595 #2215 0x0000000000406f8f in simplify_test_exp (exp=0x78f350, insn_code=0, insn_index=65) at ../../trunk/gcc/genattrtab.c:2506 #2216 0x0000000000407445 in simplify_test_exp (exp=0x78f010, insn_code=0, insn_index=65) at ../../trunk/gcc/genattrtab.c:2595 #2217 0x0000000000406f8f in simplify_test_exp (exp=0x78f310, insn_code=0, insn_index=65) at ../../trunk/gcc/genattrtab.c:2506 #2218 0x0000000000407445 in simplify_test_exp (exp=0x78f010, insn_code=0, insn_index=65) at ../../trunk/gcc/genattrtab.c:2595 #2219 0x0000000000406f8f in simplify_test_exp (exp=0x78f2d0, insn_code=0, insn_index=65) at ../../trunk/gcc/genattrtab.c:2506 #2220 0x0000000000407445 in simplify_test_exp (exp=0x78f010, insn_code=0, insn_index=65) at ../../trunk/gcc/genattrtab.c:2595 #2221 0x0000000000406f8f in simplify_test_exp (exp=0x78f290, insn_code=0, insn_index=65) at ../../trunk/gcc/genattrtab.c:2506 #2222 0x0000000000407445 in simplify_test_exp (exp=0x78f010, insn_code=0, insn_index=65) at ../../trunk/gcc/genattrtab.c:2595 #2223 0x0000000000406f8f in simplify_test_exp (exp=0x78f250, insn_code=0, insn_index=65) at ../../trunk/gcc/genattrtab.c:2506 #2224 0x0000000000407445 in simplify_test_exp (exp=0x78f010, insn_code=0, insn_index=65) at ../../trunk/gcc/genattrtab.c:2595 #2225 0x0000000000406f8f in simplify_test_exp (exp=0x78f210, insn_code=0, insn_index=65) at ../../trunk/gcc/genattrtab.c:2506 #2226 0x0000000000407445 in simplify_test_exp (exp=0x78f010, insn_code=0, insn_index=65) at ../../trunk/gcc/genattrtab.c:2595 #2227 0x0000000000406f8f in simplify_test_exp (exp=0x78f1d0, insn_code=0, insn_index=65) at ../../trunk/gcc/genattrtab.c:2506 #2228 0x0000000000407445 in simplify_test_exp (exp=0x78f010, insn_code=0, insn_index=65) at ../../trunk/gcc/genattrtab.c:2595 #2229 0x0000000000406f8f in simplify_test_exp (exp=0x78f190, insn_code=0, insn_index=65) at ../../trunk/gcc/genattrtab.c:2506 #2230 0x0000000000407445 in simplify_test_exp (exp=0x78f010, insn_code=0, insn_index=65) at ../../trunk/gcc/genattrtab.c:2595 #2231 0x0000000000406f8f in simplify_test_exp (exp=0x78f150, insn_code=0, insn_index=65) at ../../trunk/gcc/genattrtab.c:2506 #2232 0x0000000000407445 in simplify_test_exp (exp=0x78f010, insn_code=0, insn_index=65) at ../../trunk/gcc/genattrtab.c:2595 #2233 0x0000000000406f8f in simplify_test_exp (exp=0x78f110, insn_code=0, insn_index=65) at ../../trunk/gcc/genattrtab.c:2506 #2234 0x0000000000407445 in simplify_test_exp (exp=0x78f010, insn_code=0, insn_index=65) at ../../trunk/gcc/genattrtab.c:2595 #2235 0x0000000000406f8f in simplify_test_exp (exp=0x78f0d0, insn_code=0, insn_index=65) at ../../trunk/gcc/genattrtab.c:2506 #2236 0x0000000000407445 in simplify_test_exp (exp=0x78f010, insn_code=0, insn_index=65) at ../../trunk/gcc/genattrtab.c:2595 #2237 0x0000000000406f8f in simplify_test_exp (exp=0x78f090, insn_code=0, insn_index=65) at ../../trunk/gcc/genattrtab.c:2506 #2238 0x0000000000407445 in simplify_test_exp (exp=0x78f010, insn_code=0, insn_index=65) at ../../trunk/gcc/genattrtab.c:2595 #2239 0x0000000000406f8f in simplify_test_exp (exp=0x78f050, insn_code=0, insn_index=65) at ../../trunk/gcc/genattrtab.c:2506 #2240 0x0000000000407445 in simplify_test_exp (exp=0x78f010, insn_code=0, insn_index=65) at ../../trunk/gcc/genattrtab.c:2595 #2241 0x00000000004074da in simplify_test_exp (exp=0x76f300, insn_code=0, insn_index=65) at ../../trunk/gcc/genattrtab.c:2602 #2242 0x0000000000406a02 in simplify_test_exp_in_temp (exp=0x76f300, insn_code=0, insn_index=65) at ../../trunk/gcc/genattrtab.c:2335 #2243 0x0000000000405246 in simplify_cond (exp=0x739890, insn_code=0, insn_index=65) at ../../trunk/gcc/genattrtab.c:1671 #2244 0x0000000000408225 in optimize_attrs () at ../../trunk/gcc/genattrtab.c:2877 #2245 0x000000000040cfe9 in main (argc=3, argv=0x7fffffffe328) at ../../trunk/gcc/genattrtab.c:5023 (gdb) It's not very productive, either: #2230 0x0000000000407445 in simplify_test_exp (exp=0x78f010, insn_code=0, insn_index=65) at ../../trunk/gcc/genattrtab.c:2595 2595 return SIMPLIFY_TEST_EXP (newexp, insn_code, insn_index); (gdb) call print_rtl (stderr,exp) (and (eq_attr/u/i ("cpu") ("cfv4")) (eq_attr_alt/s 1 1)) (gdb) down #2229 0x0000000000406f8f in simplify_test_exp (exp=0x78f190, insn_code=0, insn_index=65) at ../../trunk/gcc/genattrtab.c:2506 2506 right = SIMPLIFY_TEST_EXP (XEXP (exp, 1), insn_code, insn_index); (gdb) call print_rtl (stderr,exp) (and (eq_attr_alt/s 2 0) (and (eq_attr/u/i ("cpu") ("cfv4")) (eq_attr_alt/s 1 1))) (gdb) down #2228 0x0000000000407445 in simplify_test_exp (exp=0x78f010, insn_code=0, insn_index=65) at ../../trunk/gcc/genattrtab.c:2595 2595 return SIMPLIFY_TEST_EXP (newexp, insn_code, insn_index); (gdb) call print_rtl (stderr,exp) (and (eq_attr/u/i ("cpu") ("cfv4")) (eq_attr_alt/s 1 1)) (gdb) down #2227 0x0000000000406f8f in simplify_test_exp (exp=0x78f1d0, insn_code=0, insn_index=65) at ../../trunk/gcc/genattrtab.c:2506 2506 right = SIMPLIFY_TEST_EXP (XEXP (exp, 1), insn_code, insn_index); (gdb) call print_rtl (stderr,exp) (and (eq_attr_alt/s 2 0) (and (eq_attr/u/i ("cpu") ("cfv4")) (eq_attr_alt/s 1 1))) (gdb) down #2226 0x0000000000407445 in simplify_test_exp (exp=0x78f010, insn_code=0, insn_index=65) at ../../trunk/gcc/genattrtab.c:2595 2595 return SIMPLIFY_TEST_EXP (newexp, insn_code, insn_index); (gdb) call print_rtl (stderr,exp) (and (eq_attr/u/i ("cpu") ("cfv4")) (eq_attr_alt/s 1 1)) (gdb) down #2225 0x0000000000406f8f in simplify_test_exp (exp=0x78f210, insn_code=0, insn_index=65) at ../../trunk/gcc/genattrtab.c:2506 2506 right = SIMPLIFY_TEST_EXP (XEXP (exp, 1), insn_code, insn_index); (gdb) call print_rtl (stderr,exp) (and (eq_attr_alt/s 2 0) (and (eq_attr/u/i ("cpu") ("cfv4")) (eq_attr_alt/s 1 1))) (gdb) down #2224 0x0000000000407445 in simplify_test_exp (exp=0x78f010, insn_code=0, insn_index=65) at ../../trunk/gcc/genattrtab.c:2595 2595 return SIMPLIFY_TEST_EXP (newexp, insn_code, insn_index); (gdb) call print_rtl (stderr,exp) (and (eq_attr/u/i ("cpu") ("cfv4")) (eq_attr_alt/s 1 1)) (gdb) down #2223 0x0000000000406f8f in simplify_test_exp (exp=0x78f250, insn_code=0, insn_index=65) at ../../trunk/gcc/genattrtab.c:2506 2506 right = SIMPLIFY_TEST_EXP (XEXP (exp, 1), insn_code, insn_index); (gdb) call print_rtl (stderr,exp) (and (eq_attr_alt/s 2 0) (and (eq_attr/u/i ("cpu") ("cfv4")) (eq_attr_alt/s 1 1))) (gdb) down #2222 0x0000000000407445 in simplify_test_exp (exp=0x78f010, insn_code=0, insn_index=65) at ../../trunk/gcc/genattrtab.c:2595 2595 return SIMPLIFY_TEST_EXP (newexp, insn_code, insn_index); (gdb) call print_rtl (stderr,exp) (and (eq_attr/u/i ("cpu") ("cfv4")) (eq_attr_alt/s 1 1)) (gdb) down #2221 0x0000000000406f8f in simplify_test_exp (exp=0x78f290, insn_code=0, insn_index=65) at ../../trunk/gcc/genattrtab.c:2506 2506 right = SIMPLIFY_TEST_EXP (XEXP (exp, 1), insn_code, insn_index); (gdb) call print_rtl (stderr,exp) (and (eq_attr_alt/s 2 0) (and (eq_attr/u/i ("cpu") ("cfv4")) (eq_attr_alt/s 1 1))) (gdb) down #2220 0x0000000000407445 in simplify_test_exp (exp=0x78f010, insn_code=0, insn_index=65) at ../../trunk/gcc/genattrtab.c:2595 2595 return SIMPLIFY_TEST_EXP (newexp, insn_code, insn_index); (gdb) call print_rtl (stderr,exp) (and (eq_attr/u/i ("cpu") ("cfv4")) (eq_attr_alt/s 1 1)) (gdb) down #2219 0x0000000000406f8f in simplify_test_exp (exp=0x78f2d0, insn_code=0, insn_index=65) at ../../trunk/gcc/genattrtab.c:2506 2506 right = SIMPLIFY_TEST_EXP (XEXP (exp, 1), insn_code, insn_index); (gdb) call print_rtl (stderr,exp) (and (eq_attr_alt/s 2 0) (and (eq_attr/u/i ("cpu") ("cfv4")) (eq_attr_alt/s 1 1))) (gdb) (etc...) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/52391] [4.7 regression] genattrtab almost 5X slower for m68k than in 4.6 and earlier releases 2012-02-26 23:08 [Bug other/52391] New: [4.7 regression] genattrtab almost 5X slower for m68k than in 4.6 and earlier releases mikpe at it dot uu.se ` (8 preceding siblings ...) 2012-02-28 0:38 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-02-28 9:02 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-22 8:44 ` [Bug bootstrap/52391] [4.7/4.8 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ` (4 subsequent siblings) 14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: steven at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-02-28 9:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52391 --- Comment #10 from Steven Bosscher <steven at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-02-28 09:00:21 UTC --- F, that backtrace was due to an error in the patch I had to look at what simplify_and_tree was doing. genattrtab is trying to simplify huge and-trees, mostly for m68k_sched_* symbol refs. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/52391] [4.7/4.8 regression] genattrtab almost 5X slower for m68k than in 4.6 and earlier releases 2012-02-26 23:08 [Bug other/52391] New: [4.7 regression] genattrtab almost 5X slower for m68k than in 4.6 and earlier releases mikpe at it dot uu.se ` (9 preceding siblings ...) 2012-02-28 9:02 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-03-22 8:44 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-05 10:14 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org ` (3 subsequent siblings) 14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-03-22 8:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52391 Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Target Milestone|4.7.0 |4.7.1 --- Comment #11 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-03-22 08:26:27 UTC --- GCC 4.7.0 is being released, adjusting target milestone. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/52391] [4.7/4.8 regression] genattrtab almost 5X slower for m68k than in 4.6 and earlier releases 2012-02-26 23:08 [Bug other/52391] New: [4.7 regression] genattrtab almost 5X slower for m68k than in 4.6 and earlier releases mikpe at it dot uu.se ` (10 preceding siblings ...) 2012-03-22 8:44 ` [Bug bootstrap/52391] [4.7/4.8 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-05-05 10:14 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-05 11:31 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org ` (2 subsequent siblings) 14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: steven at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-05-05 10:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52391 --- Comment #12 from Steven Bosscher <steven at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-05 10:06:32 UTC --- Created attachment 27315 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27315 Avoid diving deep through generated IOR trees for EQ_ATTR This patch tries to keep IOR-trees for EQ_ATTR tests together. This improves genattrtab run time and also the generated code because more get_attr_* results are cached. On gcc110, the run time for genattrtab for m68k goes down from 9m3s to 4m15s. The difference in insn-attrtab looks like an improvement at first glance, but I could use some help interpreting the differences. (Will attach shortly.) (The cf.md bit only sorts the attributes alphabetically but doesn't change the genattrtab run time.) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/52391] [4.7/4.8 regression] genattrtab almost 5X slower for m68k than in 4.6 and earlier releases 2012-02-26 23:08 [Bug other/52391] New: [4.7 regression] genattrtab almost 5X slower for m68k than in 4.6 and earlier releases mikpe at it dot uu.se ` (11 preceding siblings ...) 2012-05-05 10:14 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-05-05 11:31 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-06 22:02 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-07 12:46 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org 14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: steven at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-05-05 11:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52391 --- Comment #13 from Steven Bosscher <steven at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-05 10:13:48 UTC --- Created attachment 27316 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27316 Difference in insn-attrtab.c before/after applyin PR52391_compare_IOP_tree_v1.diff tmp-attrtab.c is *with* the patch applied, insn-attrtab.c is without patch, for GCC trunk at r186902. Typical difference: $ grep m68k_sched_branch_type v1_insn-attrtab.diff | grep "^\-" | wc 116 464 4524 $ grep m68k_sched_branch_type v1_insn-attrtab.diff | grep "^\+" | wc 2360 9440 92040 If someone could help interpret the differences, I'd be very grateful. With or without patch, insn-attrtab is a monster... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/52391] [4.7/4.8 regression] genattrtab almost 5X slower for m68k than in 4.6 and earlier releases 2012-02-26 23:08 [Bug other/52391] New: [4.7 regression] genattrtab almost 5X slower for m68k than in 4.6 and earlier releases mikpe at it dot uu.se ` (12 preceding siblings ...) 2012-05-05 11:31 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-05-06 22:02 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-07 12:46 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org 14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: steven at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-05-06 22:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52391 --- Comment #14 from Steven Bosscher <steven at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-06 21:40:18 UTC --- Created attachment 27328 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27328 Remove unused sched_branch_type stuff from m68k Patch speaks for itself. Without patch, trunk r186902, run time for genattrtab is 9m03s. With the m68k-specific pieces of this patch, genattrtab run time is 1m53s. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/52391] [4.7/4.8 regression] genattrtab almost 5X slower for m68k than in 4.6 and earlier releases 2012-02-26 23:08 [Bug other/52391] New: [4.7 regression] genattrtab almost 5X slower for m68k than in 4.6 and earlier releases mikpe at it dot uu.se ` (13 preceding siblings ...) 2012-05-06 22:02 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-05-07 12:46 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org 14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: steven at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-05-07 12:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52391 Steven Bosscher <steven at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Depends on| |29442 Resolution| |FIXED --- Comment #15 from Steven Bosscher <steven at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-07 12:44:28 UTC --- Fixed with trunk r187234. Could also be easily back-ported to GCC 4.7 if necessary. The basic problems with genattrtab optimizations are not yet solved. Some potential solutions are being discussed in bug 29442. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-05-07 12:45 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 16+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2012-02-26 23:08 [Bug other/52391] New: [4.7 regression] genattrtab almost 5X slower for m68k than in 4.6 and earlier releases mikpe at it dot uu.se 2012-02-27 9:32 ` [Bug other/52391] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-27 10:48 ` [Bug bootstrap/52391] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-27 20:44 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-27 21:52 ` mikpe at it dot uu.se 2012-02-27 23:04 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-27 23:05 ` mikpe at it dot uu.se 2012-02-27 23:16 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-27 23:35 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-28 0:38 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-28 9:02 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-22 8:44 ` [Bug bootstrap/52391] [4.7/4.8 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-05 10:14 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-05 11:31 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-06 22:02 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-07 12:46 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org
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).