public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "law at redhat dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/61515] [4.9/4.10 Regression] Extremely long compile time for generated code
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 19:34:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-61515-4-6cBewDGrSB@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-61515-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61515
Jeffrey A. Law <law at redhat dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |law at redhat dot com
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law <law at redhat dot com> ---
Fundamentally we don't have a way to know what equivalences we need to
invalidate.
Invalidation is, umm, painful. The question in my mind is why are we getting
so many invalidations to start with. That's the first thing to look at.
Honestly though, I really wonder if handling backedges is worth the effort,
even though it's important for one benchmark.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-06-17 19:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-06-15 23:23 [Bug tree-optimization/61515] New: " astrange at ithinksw dot com
2014-06-15 23:24 ` [Bug tree-optimization/61515] " astrange at ithinksw dot com
2014-06-16 2:40 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-06-16 6:44 ` astrange at ithinksw dot com
2014-06-16 8:28 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-06-16 9:45 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-06-16 9:47 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-06-16 11:19 ` [Bug tree-optimization/61515] [4.10 Regression] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-06-17 11:11 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-06-17 11:23 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-06-17 11:48 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-06-17 12:00 ` [Bug tree-optimization/61515] [4.9/4.10 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-06-17 19:34 ` law at redhat dot com [this message]
2014-06-18 7:45 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2014-06-26 12:50 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-07-16 13:28 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-10-21 9:39 ` [Bug tree-optimization/61515] [4.9/5 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-10-21 9:46 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-10-21 9:52 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-10-21 9:55 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-10-21 10:05 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-10-21 11:19 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-10-21 11:59 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-10-30 10:38 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-11-04 23:03 ` law at redhat dot com
2014-11-05 12:35 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-11-06 21:45 ` law at redhat dot com
2014-11-07 8:33 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-11-07 16:47 ` law at redhat dot com
2014-11-07 22:55 ` law at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-06-26 20:04 ` [Bug tree-optimization/61515] [4.9 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-06-26 20:34 ` jakub 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-61515-4-6cBewDGrSB@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).