From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13484 invoked by alias); 11 Mar 2011 13:42:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 13463 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Mar 2011 13:42:19 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 13:42:14 +0000 Received: (qmail 26760 invoked from network); 11 Mar 2011 13:42:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (froydnj@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 11 Mar 2011 13:42:13 -0000 Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 13:42:00 -0000 From: Nathan Froyd To: Richard Guenther Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, fortran@gcc.gnu.org, java-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [4.7 PATCH 00/18] slim down a number of tree nodes Message-ID: <20110311134212.GH23686@codesourcery.com> References: <1299817406-16745-1-git-send-email-froydnj@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-03/txt/msg00606.txt.bz2 On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 02:25:38PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 5:23 AM, Nathan Froyd wrote: > > This patch series does something similar to what: > > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-11/msg02491.html > > > > did, only it does it in a cleaner way and it addresses the problem more > > generally. > > > > Eliminating the block field from tree_exp would be another nice-to-have > > for 4.7, but that's not on my radar of things to address at the moment. > > I think removing TREE_TYPE from tree_exp isn't worth it, we do not have > many expression trees left with tuples. Unifying BLOCK with locations > would indeed be nice (but again we don't have many exp trees left). Well, the patch from last November showed that there are enough expressions left that eliminating a pointer reduces GC memory by ~1%. So I'd say shrinking things would still be worthwhile. > > I have not rigorously measured memory savings with this patch.  Based on > > a (very small) sample, this patch saves ~5% of tree memory according to > > dump_tree_statistics...though the amount of tree memory as reported by > > dump_tree_statistics is somewhat suspect, since it doesn't include > > statistics from copy_node_stat. > > I thought I had fixed that ... but appearantly I didn't commit that > part. I have a patch which I will submit for 4.7, so unless you beat me to it... > > The patch series has been bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, both > > in its entirety and with sub-patches along the way. > > Did you make sure to enable all languages? And grep for occurances in > backends? I bootstrapped with --enable-languages=c,c++,ada,fortran,java,objc,obj-c++,go. I didn't check for bits in the backends; I can look around, but any backend poking in the fields that got eliminated deserves what's coming. -Nathan