From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26287 invoked by alias); 2 Sep 2004 17:25:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 26278 invoked from network); 2 Sep 2004 17:25:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 2 Sep 2004 17:25:15 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1C2vKg-000417-3v; Thu, 02 Sep 2004 13:25:10 -0400 Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 17:28:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Zack Weinberg Cc: Jan Hubicka , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, stevenb@suse.de, rth@redhat.com Subject: Re: Better memory statistics, take 2 Message-ID: <20040902172510.GA15331@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Zack Weinberg , Jan Hubicka , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, stevenb@suse.de, rth@redhat.com References: <20040902161203.GF22834@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <87eklk1vy6.fsf@codesourcery.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87eklk1vy6.fsf@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00237.txt.bz2 On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 09:23:29AM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote: > Jan Hubicka writes: > > > Hi, > > here is updated version of patch I sent while reducing memory for GCC > > 3.4, it is quite usefull now again... > > > > Hi, this patch improves the per-line statistics by tracking down > > each allocated entity to figure out whether it will be freed, > > garbage collected or leaked. To rule out ggc_freed values is pretty > > important as these are much cheaper, > ... > > Please do timing tests before submitting any changes. In my > experience ggc_free is *not* cheaper, it is by itself such an > expensive operation that we don't actually gain anything over > letting the garbage collector do its job. Just FYI, in the revamped zone allocator that I've been working on, ggc_free will be very cheap. If it's not for the page allocator, then maybe it's a good idea to have it not do anything for !ENABLE_CHECKING. -- Daniel Jacobowitz