This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: 100x -O0 Compile Time Regression {3.2,3.3} -> {3.4,3.5}

From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
To: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
Cc: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 10:15:19 -0500
Subject: Re: 100x -O0 Compile Time Regression {3.2,3.3} -> {3.4,3.5}
References: <200402130334.i1D3YFqj005917@speedy.slc.redhat.com> <06D6C356-5DDE-11D8-8439-000A95DA505C@dberlin.org> <1076671720.3252.33.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On Feb 13, 2004, at 6:28 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:

On Thu, 2004-02-12 at 23:35, Daniel Berlin wrote:

[ moved to gcc-patches ]

Index: tree-cfg.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc/Attic/tree-cfg.c,v
retrieving revision 1.1.4.264
diff -u -3 -p -r1.1.4.264 tree-cfg.c
--- tree-cfg.c  4 Feb 2004 06:08:20 -0000       1.1.4.264
+++ tree-cfg.c  13 Feb 2004 04:34:59 -0000
@@ -3948,7 +3948,7 @@ split_critical_edges (void)
  {
    basic_block bb;
    edge e;
-
+  free_dominance_info (CDI_DOMINATORS);
    FOR_ALL_BB (bb)
      {
        for (e = bb->succ; e ; e = e->succ_next)

This looks OK, provided it bootstraps, etc.

I also have to work up a changelog (which i assume was in the etc), there might be a better way to solve the problem. It was just a quick hack to demonstrate the problem.

References:
- Re: 100x -O0 Compile Time Regression {3.2,3.3} -> {3.4,3.5}
  - From: Diego Novillo

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]