This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [rfc] Moving bbs back to pools
- From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
- To: Zdenek Dvorak <rakdver at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, dberlin at dberlin dot org
- Date: 07 Jun 2007 07:25:05 -0700
- Subject: Re: [rfc] Moving bbs back to pools
- References: <20070607110422.GA14555@kam.mff.cuni.cz>
Zdenek Dvorak <email@example.com> writes:
> The problem is, that it does not give any speedups (it is almost
> completely compile-time neutral for compilation of preprocessed
> gcc sources). I will check whether moving also edges to pools
> changes anything, but so far it does not seem very promising :-(
Does it make any difference for gcc.c-torture/compile/20001226-1.c?
And of course it won't make any difference if you have enough memory
that you never need to garbage collect without your patch.
I would like to see us implement this general GC approach even if we
don't wind up moving the basic blocks into it today. But we'll have
to figure out what to do for PCH. I guess the general approach would
be to provide an optional swizzling routine as well as the marking
routine. Then abort if gt_pch_save finds an object with a marking
routine but no swizzling routine. The swizzling routine would do
something involving gt_pch_note_object and/or relocate_ptrs. Or maybe
we would need two routines, one to note and one to relocate.