This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Prune BLOCK_VARs lists in free_lang_data
- From: Richard Biener <rguenther at suse dot de>
- To: Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 11:31:49 +0100
- Subject: Re: Prune BLOCK_VARs lists in free_lang_data
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20160115110802 dot GD77658 at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz> <alpine dot LSU dot 2 dot 11 dot 1601151236370 dot 31122 at t29 dot fhfr dot qr> <20160116102709 dot GD46287 at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz>
On January 16, 2016 11:27:09 AM GMT+01:00, Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz> wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Jan 2016, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> > this is last of my patches to improve partitionability of programs.
>
>> > This patch compacts BLOCK_VARs lists and trows away TYPE_DECLs for
>-g0
>> > and redundant TYPE_DECLs on all levels. It does make noticeable
>difference
>> > on firefox, but I managed to erase the numbers (can re-test them if
>requested)
>> >
>> > Bootstrapped/regtested x86_64-linux, OK?
>>
>> Hmm. So I wonder why remove_unused_locals does not do this then
>> or if it does not because it would change code-gen based on -g/-g0
>> I wonder why your patch wouldn't introduce that issue with LTO.
>
>Usually the things stay to make DECL_UID stable across -g and -g0.
Only DECL_UID order needs to be stable I think.
>This is not
>the case with LTO,
I don't see how LTO does behave differently here.
so ATM we do not have same codegen with lto and
>-g/-g0. I
>guess it is something we can start shooting for once early debug is in.
>>
>> That said - improve remove_unused_locals instead please?
>
>Yep, that makes sense (though i am not sure every BLOCK_VARs seen by
>lto
>streamer is also seen by this function). Will update the patch and
>re-measure
>the effect.
>
>Honza