From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7251 invoked by alias); 2 Aug 2009 21:44:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 7235 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Aug 2009 21:44:12 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail13.bluewin.ch (HELO mail13.bluewin.ch) (195.186.18.62) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:44:02 +0000 X-FXIT-IP: IPv4[92.107.19.129] Epoch[1249249438] Received: from [92.107.19.129] ([92.107.19.129:7094] helo=[192.168.1.64]) by mail13.bluewin.ch (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.2.41 r(31179/31189)) with ESMTP id 2E/68-15411-D98067A4; Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:43:58 +0000 Message-ID: <4A76089D.2040302@bluewin.ch> Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:44:00 -0000 From: Audrius Meskauskas User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090608) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Haley CC: Andrew John Hughes , Jakub Jelinek , Gerald Pfeifer , Richard Henderson , Java Patch List , Alexandre Oliva , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, classpath-patches ml Subject: Re: [cp-patches] Split gnu/javax/swing/text/html/parser/HTML_401F.java References: <20090630124346.GX4462@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com> <4A4A2623.9010609@redhat.com> <20090630152911.GA4462@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com> <4A4B5883.4050905@redhat.com> <20090712203554.GD4462@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com> <4A5CB229.9030400@bluewin.ch> <17c6771e0907271555v4eeae876se3f8dbc4268a08e6@mail.gmail.com> <4A6FF4D8.9050803@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4A6FF4D8.9050803@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact java-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: java-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-q3/txt/msg00064.txt.bz2 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 This change is ok. It should have no any impact on the algorithm. Audrius Andrew Haley wrote: > On 07/28/2009 12:55 AM, Andrew John Hughes wrote: >> 2009/7/14 Audrius Meskauskas : >>> On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 10:27:07PM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: >>> >>>>> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, Andrew Haley wrote: >>>>>>>>> I haven't studied how exactly is --enable-java-maintainer-mode >>>>>>>>> compiling the classes; if I just gcj -C HTML_401F.java on >>>>>>>>> Fedora 11 (GCC 4.4.0, ecj 3.4.2), the compile time with patched >>>>>>>>> VTA is only 4:53 with 1.5GB top memory usage, if I patch >>>>>>>>> HTML_401F.java >>>>>>>>> with the following patch, it compiles within 0:55 and maxes at >>>>>>>>> 250MB. >>>>>> That's quite a nice improvement. HTML_401F.java has been causing > >>>>>> troubles for many years, and splitting it really helps, for example >>>>> building on (virtual) machines with not so much main memory or in >>>>> limited settings where there is a process limit for 512MB. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> It's not an ABI change. This patch is OK iff accompanied by a >>>>>>> comment in the code that explains the problem. >>>>>> I believe the patch has not made it into GCC Subversion yet. Are >>>>> the two of you still planning to apply it? >>> See http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=149148 >>> >>> Jakub >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Masters, where is the beginning of this discussion and where is the proposed >>> patch? I have received four messages about HTML_401F that look completely in >>> the middle of the context. While it is great when somebody continues your >>> work, I think it would make no harm for me to look into the patch on the >>> class I once wrote. >>> >>> Audrius Meskauskas >>> >>> >> Audrius, the patch is visible from the link posted by Jakub: >> http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=149148 >> It simply splits the method which defines the entities into five >> separate methods to reduce load on the compiler. >> >> Is this generally useful? If so, it should go into GNU Classpath >> rather than just the downstream copy in GCJ. > > I think it should go into Classpath anyway: it doesn't hurt anything > and it reduces divergence with gcj. > > Andrew. > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkp2CIIACgkQYtLS/5wKz7AuDQCgi667yXx++8u7GREOBFli3sWm 9f0AnAgLktVYkhVz2PPFQ/u/mr5llrHl =8iy1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----