From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30136 invoked by alias); 16 Oct 2004 11:20:51 -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 30116 invoked from network); 16 Oct 2004 11:20:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 16 Oct 2004 11:20:48 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i9GBKgJu026804; Sat, 16 Oct 2004 07:20:42 -0400 Received: from devserv.devel.redhat.com (devserv.devel.redhat.com [172.16.58.1]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i9GBKgr02992; Sat, 16 Oct 2004 07:20:42 -0400 Received: from devserv.devel.redhat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by devserv.devel.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i9GBKHle011235; Sat, 16 Oct 2004 07:20:17 -0400 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by devserv.devel.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i9GBKHVI011229; Sat, 16 Oct 2004 07:20:17 -0400 Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 11:49:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Matt Austern Cc: GCC Patches Subject: Re: [Committed] Use special-purpose hash table to speed up walk_tree Message-ID: <20041016112017.GB31909@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <20041016094708.GZ31909@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <20041016103712.GA31909@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041016103712.GA31909@devserv.devel.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg01329.txt.bz2 On Sat, Oct 16, 2004 at 06:37:12AM -0400, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Sat, Oct 16, 2004 at 05:47:08AM -0400, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > But on x86-64-redhat-linux essentially makes even bootstrap impossible > > (well, I have killed it after it spent more than 10 minutes compiling > > insn-recog or insn-attrtab by stage1/cc1). > > hash1's distribution is less than perfect. > > For the hash function I'm trying these patches now: > > (both do the same, not sure if the first one is ok regarding absolute > portability). With either of these patches the average chain length on the same table (16384 pointers, 65536 slots) is 1.1, there is one occurence of 4 pointers hashed into the same slot and 44 times 3 pointers hashed into the same slot, but never more. Ok to commit? Is the #if ULONG_MAX > UINT_MAX ok, or should I commit the one without #ifs? Jakub