This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: [patch] cse.c: Speed up cse_reg_info maintanance - Part 3


Hi Mike,

> The fact remains, this is exactly the kinda of patch that kills 
> performance on darwin.
> 
> What we would like is imagine allocations that look like this:
> 
> 1
> 2
> 3
> 4
> 5
> 6
> 7
> 8
> 9
> 10
> 
> we want ln(N) calls to xmalloc, no reallocs, and not N calls to xmalloc.

I don't know much about darwin.  If what you are saying is true, how
shall we handle many other passes that allocate and free pass-specific
memory?  Should we really use this keep-and-grow idea everywhere in
GCC?  Or should we wrap or replace xmalloc and free with something
that handles common allocation patterns?

Kazu Hirata


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