This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: [RFC] type safe trees


On 24/06/2004, at 9:43 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:

Also, I understand what you're saying about CONST_DECLs living only in PCH memory which is never read -- but what about things like TREE_LISTs or VAR_DECLs that get built a lot even after the PCH has been read in as the remaining code is processed. Do you have any ideas about how profitable it might or might not be to shrink them? (We can get lots of these nodes as templates are instantiated and as code is processed.)

I think it would help. We have some evidence that a small percentage reduction in memory size gives about half that percentage reduction in compile time. (I'm anxiously awaiting someone trying a large percentage reduction.)


Also, on the identifier table issues you mention, I was actually thinking about how to reorganize that stuff today. We should avoid stepping on each other in that area. I think there are some data structure improvements we should make and also some ways in which we can seriously improve the case of entering/exiting class scopes, which happens a ton.

My thinking in that area had to do with the identifier hash table itself, and possibly making it something not a hash table (I was thinking of B-trees). But I think there are better things to try first.



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