public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "trippels at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug ipa/59265] [4.9 Regression] Segmentation fault in ipa_note_param_call for -fprofile-use in SPEC CPU2006 Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 21:25:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-59265-4-sHclPbi5IH@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-59265-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59265 --- Comment #23 from Markus Trippelsdorf <trippels at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Here's a testcase: tmp % wget trippelsdorf.de/cceI2Nud.ltrans22.o.bz2 tmp % bzip2 -d cceI2Nud.ltrans22.o.bz2 tmp % g++ -xlto -fltrans cceI2Nud.ltrans22.o In member function ‘extractBetween’: lto1: fatal error: Cgraph edge statement index out of range 25 < 50 compilation terminated. >From gcc-bugs-return-437922-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Tue Dec 17 21:28:10 2013 Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-437922-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org> Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 11012 invoked by alias); 17 Dec 2013 21:28:09 -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 Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 10965 invoked by uid 55); 17 Dec 2013 21:28:06 -0000 From: "hubicka at ucw dot cz" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug middle-end/35545] virtual call specialization not happening with FDO Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 21:28:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.4.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement X-Bugzilla-Who: hubicka at ucw dot cz 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-35545-4-Vp58CYPgVM@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-35545-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-35545-4@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: 2013-12/txt/msg01577.txt.bz2 Content-length: 948 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id5545 --- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz> --- > Tracer depends on the usual estimate_num_insns limits > (it is 12 years since I wrote it, so what I recall) note that one impotant thing that changed in those 12 years is that I originally carefuly tuned tracer in combination with crossjumping. Tracer produced duplicates and if no pass managed to take use of them, crossjumping cleaned them up pre-reload. Trace formation in bb-reorder re-instantiated duplicated when it seemed sensible for code layout. This broke, since SSA makes RTL cross jumping quite useless and it is now done after reg-alloc only. We never really got working code unification pass on gimple. http://www.ucw.cz/~hubicka/papers/amd64/node4.html Claims that at that time I got 1.6% speedup on SPECint with profile feedback 1.43% code growth. That is not bad, but wonder to what it translates today. Honza
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-12-17 21:25 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2013-11-23 17:57 [Bug c++/59265] New: " marxin.liska at gmail dot com 2013-11-25 9:19 ` [Bug ipa/59265] [4.9 Regression] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-12-14 13:39 ` octoploid at yandex dot com 2013-12-14 20:35 ` octoploid at yandex dot com 2013-12-15 16:00 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-12-15 16:32 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-12-15 22:19 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-12-16 6:16 ` octoploid at yandex dot com 2013-12-16 8:02 ` octoploid at yandex dot com 2013-12-16 8:48 ` octoploid at yandex dot com 2013-12-16 11:14 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-12-16 12:04 ` octoploid at yandex dot com 2013-12-16 13:20 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-12-16 13:37 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-12-16 13:41 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-12-16 15:08 ` octoploid at yandex dot com 2013-12-16 17:51 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz 2013-12-16 20:32 ` trippels at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-12-16 21:13 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz 2013-12-16 21:32 ` trippels at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-12-16 21:50 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz 2013-12-17 13:01 ` trippels at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-12-17 21:25 ` trippels at gcc dot gnu.org [this message] 2013-12-18 9:14 ` trippels at gcc dot gnu.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-59265-4-sHclPbi5IH@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).