This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [libstdc++ PATH] tr1::bind support
- From: Steven Bosscher <stevenb at suse dot de>
- To: Jonathan Wakely <cow at compsoc dot man dot ac dot uk>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Chris Jefferson <caj at cs dot york dot ac dot uk>, Doug Gregor <dgregor at cs dot indiana dot edu>, libstdc++ <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>, pcarlini at suse dot it
- Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 13:43:16 +0100
- Subject: Re: [libstdc++ PATH] tr1::bind support
- Organization: SUSE Labs
- References: <200503221106.51766.stevenb@suse.de> <200503231258.56565.stevenb@suse.de> <20050323124008.GA44599@compsoc.man.ac.uk>
On Wednesday 23 March 2005 13:40, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 12:58:56PM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > On Tuesday 22 March 2005 11:27, Chris Jefferson wrote:
> > > Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > > > Could you send me a preprocessed file for this? I want to know
> > > > where all that time is going in a non-PCH compile (I have a few
> > > > ideas, but I'd like to check them...).
> > >
> > > Heres a bzip2ed, preprocessed copy of
> > > testsuite/tr1/6_containers/tuple/comparison_operators/comparisons.cc.
> > > (for 4.1.0 20050315) Have fun ;)
> >
> > Blech. Almost *all* compile time is sucked up in the C++ front end
> > name look stuff (at any -On, here at -O0):
> >
> > Execution times (seconds)
> > life analysis : 0.00 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.01 ( 0%)
> > wall preprocessing : 0.30 ( 4%) usr 0.20 (15%) sys 0.59 (
> > 7%) wall parser : 1.61 (22%) usr 0.63 (46%) sys 2.41
> > (27%) wall name lookup : 5.40 (73%) usr 0.50 (37%) sys
> > 5.65 (64%) wall tree gimplify : 0.03 ( 0%) usr 0.01 ( 1%) sys
> > 0.03 ( 0%) wall tree CFG construction : 0.01 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%)
> > sys 0.00 ( 0%) wall expand : 0.00 ( 0%) usr 0.00 (
> > 0%) sys 0.01 ( 0%) wall varconst : 0.00 ( 0%) usr 0.01
> > ( 1%) sys 0.01 ( 0%) wall local alloc : 0.01 ( 0%) usr
> > 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.00 ( 0%) wall global alloc : 0.03 ( 0%) usr
> > 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.01 ( 0%) wall final : 0.00 ( 0%)
> > usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.01 ( 0%) wall rest of compilation : 0.00 (
> > 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.01 ( 0%) wall TOTAL : 7.40
> > 1.36 8.78
> >
> > On a bootstrapped cc1plus of today, oprofile tells me that comptypes
> > takes a rediculous amount of time, as does strlen. Is this a known
> > bottleneck in the C++ front end?
>
> I think the names of template specialisations for 20-parameter tuples
> will be very long, and will probably only differ at the end of the
> strings, so it may not be such a problem with most other code.
Well, if you are right, and C++ continues in this direction as a language,
this is still something we need to find a solution for.
BTW the patch below, to not compare target attributes until after
making sure that the types are the same from a target-independent
POV, also cuts off 40% of the compile time of this test case for
me. Will re-post after testing and such...
Gr.
Steven
Index: typeck.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc/cp/typeck.c,v
retrieving revision 1.620
diff -u -3 -p -r1.620 typeck.c
--- typeck.c 22 Mar 2005 09:30:06 -0000 1.620
+++ typeck.c 23 Mar 2005 12:35:58 -0000
@@ -905,8 +905,6 @@ comp_array_types (tree t1, tree t2, bool
bool
comptypes (tree t1, tree t2, int strict)
{
- int retval;
-
if (t1 == t2)
return true;
@@ -969,9 +967,7 @@ comptypes (tree t1, tree t2, int strict)
&& TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (t1) == TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (t2))
return true;
- if (!(*targetm.comp_type_attributes) (t1, t2))
- return false;
-
+ /* Compare the types. Break out if they could be the same. */
switch (TREE_CODE (t1))
{
case TEMPLATE_TEMPLATE_PARM:
@@ -984,7 +980,7 @@ comptypes (tree t1, tree t2, int strict)
DECL_TEMPLATE_PARMS (TEMPLATE_TEMPLATE_PARM_TEMPLATE_DECL (t2))))
return false;
if (TREE_CODE (t1) == TEMPLATE_TEMPLATE_PARM)
- return true;
+ break;
/* Don't check inheritance. */
strict = COMPARE_STRICT;
/* Fall through. */
@@ -995,18 +991,17 @@ comptypes (tree t1, tree t2, int strict)
&& (TYPE_TI_TEMPLATE (t1) == TYPE_TI_TEMPLATE (t2)
|| TREE_CODE (t1) == BOUND_TEMPLATE_TEMPLATE_PARM)
&& comp_template_args (TYPE_TI_ARGS (t1), TYPE_TI_ARGS (t2)))
- return true;
+ break;
if ((strict & COMPARE_BASE) && DERIVED_FROM_P (t1, t2))
- return true;
+ break;
else if ((strict & COMPARE_DERIVED) && DERIVED_FROM_P (t2, t1))
- return true;
+ break;
- /* We may be dealing with Objective-C instances... */
+ /* We may be dealing with Objective-C instances. */
if (TREE_CODE (t1) == RECORD_TYPE
- && ((retval = objc_comptypes (t1, t2, 0)) >= 0))
- return retval;
- /* ...but fall through if we are not. */
+ && objc_comptypes (t1, t2, 0) >= 0)
+ break;
return false;
@@ -1014,51 +1009,72 @@ comptypes (tree t1, tree t2, int strict)
if (!comptypes (TYPE_OFFSET_BASETYPE (t1), TYPE_OFFSET_BASETYPE (t2),
strict & ~COMPARE_REDECLARATION))
return false;
- return same_type_p (TREE_TYPE (t1), TREE_TYPE (t2));
+ if (!same_type_p (TREE_TYPE (t1), TREE_TYPE (t2)))
+ return false;
+ break;
case POINTER_TYPE:
case REFERENCE_TYPE:
- return TYPE_MODE (t1) == TYPE_MODE (t2)
- && TYPE_REF_CAN_ALIAS_ALL (t1) == TYPE_REF_CAN_ALIAS_ALL (t2)
- && same_type_p (TREE_TYPE (t1), TREE_TYPE (t2));
+ if (TYPE_MODE (t1) != TYPE_MODE (t2)
+ || TYPE_REF_CAN_ALIAS_ALL (t1) != TYPE_REF_CAN_ALIAS_ALL (t2)
+ || !same_type_p (TREE_TYPE (t1), TREE_TYPE (t2)))
+ return false;
+ break;
case METHOD_TYPE:
case FUNCTION_TYPE:
if (!same_type_p (TREE_TYPE (t1), TREE_TYPE (t2)))
return false;
- return compparms (TYPE_ARG_TYPES (t1), TYPE_ARG_TYPES (t2));
+ if (!compparms (TYPE_ARG_TYPES (t1), TYPE_ARG_TYPES (t2)))
+ return false;
+ break;
case ARRAY_TYPE:
/* Target types must match incl. qualifiers. */
- return comp_array_types (t1, t2, !!(strict & COMPARE_REDECLARATION));
+ if (!comp_array_types (t1, t2, !!(strict & COMPARE_REDECLARATION)))
+ return false;
+ break;
case TEMPLATE_TYPE_PARM:
- return (TEMPLATE_TYPE_IDX (t1) == TEMPLATE_TYPE_IDX (t2)
- && TEMPLATE_TYPE_LEVEL (t1) == TEMPLATE_TYPE_LEVEL (t2));
+ if (TEMPLATE_TYPE_IDX (t1) != TEMPLATE_TYPE_IDX (t2)
+ || TEMPLATE_TYPE_LEVEL (t1) != TEMPLATE_TYPE_LEVEL (t2))
+ return false;
+ break;
case TYPENAME_TYPE:
if (!cp_tree_equal (TYPENAME_TYPE_FULLNAME (t1),
TYPENAME_TYPE_FULLNAME (t2)))
return false;
- return same_type_p (TYPE_CONTEXT (t1), TYPE_CONTEXT (t2));
+ if (!same_type_p (TYPE_CONTEXT (t1), TYPE_CONTEXT (t2)))
+ return false;
+ break;
case UNBOUND_CLASS_TEMPLATE:
if (!cp_tree_equal (TYPE_IDENTIFIER (t1), TYPE_IDENTIFIER (t2)))
return false;
- return same_type_p (TYPE_CONTEXT (t1), TYPE_CONTEXT (t2));
+ if (!same_type_p (TYPE_CONTEXT (t1), TYPE_CONTEXT (t2)))
+ return false;
+ break;
case COMPLEX_TYPE:
- return same_type_p (TREE_TYPE (t1), TREE_TYPE (t2));
+ if (!same_type_p (TYPE_CONTEXT (t1), TYPE_CONTEXT (t2)))
+ return false;
+ break;
case VECTOR_TYPE:
- return TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS (t1) == TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS (t2)
- && same_type_p (TREE_TYPE (t1), TREE_TYPE (t2));
+ if (TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS (t1) != TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS (t2)
+ || !same_type_p (TREE_TYPE (t1), TREE_TYPE (t2)))
+ return false;
break;
default:
- break;
+ return false;
}
- return false;
+
+ /* If we get here, we know that from a target independent POV the
+ types are the same. Make sure the target attributes are also
+ the same. */
+ return targetm.comp_type_attributes (t1, t2);
}
/* Returns 1 if TYPE1 is at least as qualified as TYPE2. */