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: PR 30089: Fix ICE in operand allocation


On 12/14/06, Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/14/06, Jan Hubicka <jh@suse.cz> wrote:
> Hi,
> > It may be, yes.  We shouldn't need the static buffer for long,
> > hopefully.  Andrew is changing this code.  I will try to adjust it down
> > in the meantime.
>
> looks like I incorrectly blamed you instead of myself.  At least one
> problem is that statement annotation grew up rather than reduced with my
> histogram change.  This is because I moved bitfields down in the
> structure to allow better packing on 64bit and wrongly updated after
> your merge.
>
> Committed as obvoius, lets hope that it will bring the memory
> consumption back.

There's more low-hanging fruit (for 64bit systems)

well, escape_mask only needs 9 bits if you want to reduce it further



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