From: Steven Bosscher <stevenb@suse.de>
To: Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org>
Cc: law@redhat.com, Kazu Hirata <kazu@cs.umass.edu>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Attacking quadratic behaviors associated with SWITCH_EXPR
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 08:35:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200411100900.22302.stevenb@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.60.0411092033550.17025@dberlin.org>
On Wednesday 10 November 2004 02:45, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > It's tree_redirect_edge_and_branch that is quadratic if most outgoing
> > edges of a block ending in a SWITCH_EXPR are critical edges.
> >
> > (Note that pass_split_crit_edges really shouldn't be a pass. It only
> > provides a property, PROP_no_crit_edges, but it's run unconditionally,
>
> That's the fault of the pass manager.
> Passes can provide propreties.
> If nothing requires the property it provides (due to them not being
> executed), it shouldn't run the pass that provides the property.
>
> > so even with -fno-tree-pre (which is the only pass that requires this
> > property) we still run the pass_split_crit_edges pass - wasteful!)
>
> This is true, PRE is the only pass that *requires* it (and even that is
> not strictly true. I could make PRE not require it, at the expense of
> missing a bunch of redundancies).
> However, splitting critical edges is *useful* to a lot of passes, AFAIK.
Perhaps we should run the pass earlier then, or always keep critical
edges split over some range of passes, etc. The current situation is
really stupid: We split edges, then run PRE (or not), and then spend
a good amount of time unsplitting edges in cfgcleanup :-/
Gr.
Steven
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-11-10 7:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-10-23 13:00 Kazu Hirata
2004-10-24 19:17 ` Zdenek Dvorak
2004-10-25 14:51 ` Kazu Hirata
2004-10-25 19:51 ` Zack Weinberg
2004-10-25 20:11 ` Kazu Hirata
2004-10-25 20:12 ` Daniel Berlin
2004-10-25 20:41 ` Andrew MacLeod
2004-10-25 21:15 ` Kazu Hirata
2004-10-25 21:18 ` Zdenek Dvorak
2004-10-25 20:47 ` Kazu Hirata
2004-11-10 0:56 ` Jeffrey A Law
2004-11-10 1:42 ` Steven Bosscher
2004-11-10 2:10 ` Daniel Berlin
2004-11-10 8:35 ` Steven Bosscher [this message]
2004-11-10 6:10 ` Jeffrey A Law
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=200411100900.22302.stevenb@suse.de \
--to=stevenb@suse.de \
--cc=dberlin@dberlin.org \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=kazu@cs.umass.edu \
--cc=law@redhat.com \
/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: link
Be 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).