This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PR 23551: why should we coalesce inlined variables?
- From: Andrew MacLeod <amacleod at redhat dot com>
- To: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>, Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>, "Seongbae Park (?????????, ?????????)" <seongbae dot park at gmail dot com>, Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gmail dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2007 13:48:33 -0400
- Subject: Re: PR 23551: why should we coalesce inlined variables?
- References: <or7irhxh3t.fsf@free.oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> <1179318946.3671.478.camel@localhost.localdomain> <orr6ovgqsy.fsf@free.oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> <de8d50360706011715g401af925g30170754010ee90b@mail.gmail.com> <orbqf0zom9.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> <ab3a61990706280018s33ffa5b6yb2958f706e488094@mail.gmail.com> <1183031507.3902.317.camel@localhost.localdomain> <ord4zca8c5.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> <20070707231032.GD3789@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <ormyy7qrhu.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> <84fc9c000707080139v3ff52b37s78fdf68d7f6bc469@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, 2007-07-08 at 10:39 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On 7/8/07, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 7, 2007, Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz> wrote:
> >
> > >> On Jun 28, 2007, Andrew MacLeod <amacleod@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > I fooled around with some simple cases, and didn't find anything that
> > >> > made much difference. Whats a testcase you have which shows this
> > >> > helping?
> > >>
> > >> Err... I'm sure I had something when I posted the patch, but the
> > >> build tree in which I came up with the testcase is long gone, and I no
> > >> longer remember the details. On a more recent build tree, I couldn't
> > >> really find any case in which the patch really made a difference as to
> > >> debug info :-(
>
> Given the above
>
> > > this patch seems to be responsible for 90% memory consumption increase
> > > at rtl-optimization/28071 -O3:
>
> and this
>
> > And rightly so, I guess. Formerly, we discarded information to the
> > point of making the program utterly undebuggable.
>
> this can't be true and so I propose to revert this patch for now. Especially
> on the ground that my fear of increasing memory usage turned out to
> be true.
Huh. I wasn't aware it had been checked in because I still hadn't seen
an example of something it made a difference on to continue the
discussion...
So I am still against it going in until such time anyway, so reverting
it works for me.
Andrew