This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Pretty good gcc-3.1 on sparc32-linux
- From: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com>
- To: Christian Jönsson <christian at j-son dot org>
- Cc: Gcc <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 20:32:44 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: Pretty good gcc-3.1 on sparc32-linux
On Thu, 18 Apr 2002, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2002, Christian Jönsson wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 10:52:54AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 06:29:43PM +0200, Christian Jönsson wrote:
> > > > Now, what could be lurking behind the time outs I get in the gcc test
> > > > 20001226-1? Optimisation perhaps takes too long time to do or somehow
> > > > gets stuck...
> > >
> > > Takes too long in delayed branch scheduling, IIRC.
> >
> > Well, that could of course very well be the case. Do you suggest that
> > I try something special to find something out for all of us or should
> > I just drop the issue?
>
> It's not just dbr, though that might contribute. I see it off
> and on. Your mileage depends on load and speed of the build
> machine. For example, I last saw it cross-compiling to mmix,
> mn10300 and sh, and only the last one has delay-slots. It's
> mentioned from time to time; see archives.
Oops. I left out that I kill all cc1 that eats more than 200M
as a safety guard. That's probably significant... (No, not
ulimit, just sleeping and grep ps; it depends on the sampling
point whether a specific 20001226-1 is killed).
brgds, H-P