This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PATCH C++: speed up templates
- From: Ziemowit Laski <zlaski at apple dot com>
- To: Matt Austern <austern at apple dot com>
- Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:36:11 -0800
- Subject: Re: PATCH C++: speed up templates
On Wednesday, Feb 19, 2003, at 10:52 US/Pacific, Matt Austern wrote:
On Tuesday, February 18, 2003, at 01:08 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
--On Tuesday, February 18, 2003 12:27:42 PM -0800 Matt Austern
<austern at apple dot com> wrote:
Is that true even in 3.3? Remember, it's the 3.3 release branch
where we
found the regression.
No, it's not going to be true for 3.3 -- which is why I approved
Mike's patch there. :-)
Suppose we take a more radical approach, and just back out your patch
entirely from the 3.3 release branch. What would be the consequences?
In this particular case, the consequences should be nil. As I
understand Mark's November 8 patch, it merely tries to... improve
performance by storing the visited tree nodes in a hash table. :-) :-)
:-) So one option is definitely to just back it out (along with the
'htab_delete' fix that was added later). The other is to use the hash
table functionality already supported by walk_tree(). I was not aware
of this functionality (and, it would appear, neither was Mark) until
Devang pointed it out to me yesterday. I'm currently running a test
utilizing this. If it offers further performance, I'll offer it as
part of the "revert patch" patch.
--Zem
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ziemowit Laski 1 Infinite Loop, MS 301-2K
Mac OS X Compiler Group Cupertino, CA USA 95014-2083
Apple Computer, Inc. +1.408.974.6229 Fax .5477