public inbox for gcc-prs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com> To: ebotcazou@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, Subject: Re: optimization/10160: [3.3/3.4 regression][SPARC] compile time regression; inordinate time spent in "scheduling" Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 17:46:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20030416174601.2006.qmail@sources.redhat.com> (raw) The following reply was made to PR optimization/10160; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com> To: ebotcazou@gcc.gnu.org, china@thewrittenword.com, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, vmakarov@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Cc: Subject: Re: optimization/10160: [3.3/3.4 regression][SPARC] compile time regression; inordinate time spent in "scheduling" Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 13:39:59 -0400 ebotcazou@gcc.gnu.org wrote: > > Synopsis: [3.3/3.4 regression][SPARC] compile time regression; inordinate time spent in "scheduling" > > Responsible-Changed-From-To: vmakarov->ebotcazou > Responsible-Changed-By: ebotcazou > Responsible-Changed-When: Wed Apr 16 13:14:39 2003 > Responsible-Changed-Why: > Hum... I don't think that the scheduler is to be blamed here, > rather the tree inliner: cutting the inlining limit by 10 > (-finline-limit=60) brings the compile time on par with that > of the 3.2.x branch. > > The new logic of the tree inliner is not exactly adapted to this testcase. > > http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=10160 You are absolutely right. I was afraid that it is because of the first cycle multipass insn scheduling. So I switched it off and got the same result. So this is not because of the recent insn scheduling changes. Simply insn scheduling (even simplest heuristic list one) is O(n*2) algorithm. So it may behave very nasty when the input is big. There are some heuristics constraining number of dependencies but they do not help in this case. Even without insn scheduling compilation of this file takes 12 minutes on my sparc computer. Vlad
next reply other threads:[~2003-04-16 17:46 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2003-04-16 17:46 Vladimir Makarov [this message] -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below -- 2003-04-16 13:14 ebotcazou 2003-04-14 8:28 ebotcazou 2003-04-14 7:18 optimization/10160: [3.3/3.4 regression[[SPARC] " steven
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20030416174601.2006.qmail@sources.redhat.com \ --to=vmakarov@redhat.com \ --cc=ebotcazou@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).