From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 932 invoked by alias); 17 Oct 2002 13:36:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 912 invoked by uid 71); 17 Oct 2002 13:36:03 -0000 Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 06:36:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20021017133603.911.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Jan Hubicka Subject: Re: c/7344: performance regression on huge case statements Reply-To: Jan Hubicka X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00666.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c/7344; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Jan Hubicka To: Nathanael Nerode Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, jh@suse.cz, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: c/7344: performance regression on huge case statements Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 15:32:09 +0200 > Jan, your patch of October 14 had the ChangeLog entries for predict.c > (can_predict_insn_p etc) and toplev.c (rest_of_compilation), but somehow > the actual files failed to get committed. Either commit the files > (preferred) or remove the ChangeLog entry, please. :-) Oops, I will commit that one. > > http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=7344 > > Incidentally, with only the patch of October 11th (edge cache) the test > case still seems to take forever. We'll see what happens once the patch > of October 14th (eliminating unnecessary queries) is in place; I expect > that to be more important based on your earlier numbers. There is still bit too much time spent in crossjumping and branch prediction. I didn't have time to take a look at that yet, I will try to find some later. Honza > > --Nathanael