This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: 25% memory requirement regression since yesterday
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> >The tramp3d tracker caught a memory requirement regression for C++ on
> >mainline inbetween (excluding)
> >
> >2004-07-11 Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
> >
> > * cp-tree.h (saved_scope): Make old_bindings a vector.
> > (unuse_fields): Remove.
> > * name-lookup.h (cxx_saved_binding): Define it.
> > * class.c (pushclass): Don't use unuse_fields.
> > * name-lookup.c (cxx_saved_binding_make): Remove.
> > (store_binding): Add new bindings to a vector, using an
> > accumulator style, rather than adding them to a list.
> > (store_bindings): Adjust accordingly.
> > (store_class_bindings): Likewise.
> > (push_to_top_level): Likewise.
> > [...]
> >
> >also compile-time regressed somewhat. Have a look at
> >http://www.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de/~rguenth/gcc/monitor-summary.html
> >for both detailled graphs and the testcase.
> >
> >
> I'll look into that. Do you have data about compile-times, or just
> about memory usage?
I have both, but for compile time, this is only 3m52s -> 3m56s regression.
Tomorrow we will see if this was just noise.
Richard.
--
Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at uni-tuebingen dot de>
WWW: http://www.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de/~rguenth/