From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13130 invoked by alias); 25 Feb 2015 21:22:38 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 13113 invoked by uid 89); 25 Feb 2015 21:22:37 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 21:22:37 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t1PLMZun002164 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 25 Feb 2015 16:22:35 -0500 Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (ovpn-116-28.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.28]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t1PLMYKk015977 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 25 Feb 2015 16:22:35 -0500 Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t1PLMWm8024352; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 22:22:32 +0100 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.14.9/8.14.9/Submit) id t1PLMVFh024351; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 22:22:31 +0100 Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 21:44:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: Richard Biener , GCC Patches Subject: Re: [PR58315] reset inlined debug vars at return-to point Message-ID: <20150225212231.GX1746@tucnak.redhat.com> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <20150225161256.GT1746@tucnak.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-02/txt/msg01547.txt.bz2 On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 06:17:33PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > My measurements, for a not particularly unusual testcase, showed an > overall reduction of 63% in compile time, as indicated yesterday. Now, > who should bear the burden of collecting evidence to back up the claims > against the change? Are those concerns enough to hold it up? Can you e.g. run dwlocstat on some larger C++ binaries built without and with your patch? I believe dwlocstat is supposed to count only the instructions where the variables or parameters are in scope, so should be exactly what we care about here. E.g. cc1plus and libstdc++.so.6 might be good candidates from gcc itself, perhaps firefox or similar as something even larger. Jakub