From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16978 invoked by alias); 6 Jan 2003 22:46:03 -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 16914 invoked by uid 71); 6 Jan 2003 22:46:02 -0000 Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 22:46:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030106224602.16913.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Wolfgang Bangerth Subject: Re: middle-end/3973: GCC fails to bootstrap with 80+160MB memory / optimization Reply-To: Wolfgang Bangerth X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00378.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR middle-end/3973; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Wolfgang Bangerth To: Gerald Pfeifer Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, Subject: Re: middle-end/3973: GCC fails to bootstrap with 80+160MB memory / optimization Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 16:36:41 -0600 (CST) On Fri, 27 Dec 2002, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 bangerth@dealii.org wrote: > > Gerald, I hate to step on your toes, but I guess there is > > not much that can be done about this report -- newer gccs > > do more optimization, and they need more memory and compile > > time. Do you agree that there are probably better testcases > > for this kind of problem in the database? > > Well. This testcase would have been "self contained" (in that GCC > itself is the testcase) and it *is* a clear regression, Only true, but it's not exactly obvious where exactly the problem is. It's not in the form of a single preprocessed file that would make it so much easier to debug the problem. > but given the current trend, what can we realistically do about it? > > (I find it a bit disturbing that several old PRs of mine which > describe clear performance regressions are getting closed these > days without any form of resolution, but let's assume there are > other, better(?) PRs for this problem in our database.) I would not even pretend I would disagree with you on the matter of compile time and memory consumption, but every time I brought this up (even with numbers from our own project), nothing really happens. I fear that if we leave such general reports open, they will be open forever as nobody ventures to look at them. I personally am happy to leave it open, but since I know nothing about gcc's internals, I also can't help in fixing it :-( So what should we do? Regards Wolfgang PS: Which are those other reports you mention? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolfgang Bangerth email: bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu www: http://www.ticam.utexas.edu/~bangerth/