From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8576 invoked by alias); 8 Apr 2011 14:39:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 8520 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Apr 2011 14:39:24 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-ww0-f51.google.com (HELO mail-ww0-f51.google.com) (74.125.82.51) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 08 Apr 2011 14:39:19 +0000 Received: by wwf26 with SMTP id 26so4275315wwf.8 for ; Fri, 08 Apr 2011 07:39:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.165.194 with SMTP id j2mr2384967wby.178.1302273558236; Fri, 08 Apr 2011 07:39:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.0.140 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Apr 2011 07:39:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4D9F1D63.9010509@redhat.com> References: <4D9D56F4.3050203@gmail.com> <4D9F1D63.9010509@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 14:39:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gc-improv] Permanent vs function RTL obstack fix From: Richard Guenther To: Jeff Law Cc: Laurynas Biveinis , Steven Bosscher , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: 2011-04/txt/msg00636.txt.bz2 On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 04/08/11 07:21, Laurynas Biveinis wrote: >> 2011/4/8 Steven Bosscher : >>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0* stmt.c (label_rtx): Allocate RTX in permanent RTL mem= ory. >>> >>> That looks strange, labels should be function specific, except >>> non-local labels. Maybe you can get away with allocating DECL_NONLOCAL >>> labels on the permanent rtl obstack? >> >> That's a good idea, I will try it once things are stable on the branch. >> >>> Perhaps a third, per-translation-unit obstack is necessary? >> >> Perhaps. After I finish with permanent rtl obstack, I will measure how >> large it gets and if it's worthwhile to split out >> per-translation-obstack out of it. > And then you'll want a per-statement obstack, then per-expression > obstack, and before you know it, GCC looks much like it did 20 years ago. > > Sigh. I remember it was fast at that time though ;) Richard.