This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: tree-ssa performance
- From: law at redhat dot com
- To: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>
- Cc: Steven Bosscher <s dot bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>, Andrew MacLeod <amacleod at redhat dot com>, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>, Jeff Sturm <jsturm at one-point dot com>, Tim Josling <tej at melbpc dot org dot au>, Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>, doko at cs dot tu-berlin dot de, gcc mailing list <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 20:17:17 -0600
- Subject: Re: tree-ssa performance
- Reply-to: law at redhat dot com
In message <Pine.BSF.4.55.0306111526120.1948@naos.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>, Gerald Pf
eifer writes:
>On Tue, 10 Jun 2003 law@redhat.com wrote:
>> Our handling of EH is far from optimal from a compile-time performance
>> standpoint due to how we handle cleanups. I've got a patch here which
>> addresses that problem, but it's queued behind a couple other things
>> I have to nail down.
>
>To give you some motivation to push it to the head of the queue...
>
>> Changing the #if 0 around "skip-cleanups = 0" in tree-cfg.c to an #if 1
>> should give folks an idea of whether or not my pending patch will help
>> (though don't try to use such a compiler for real work :-) Gerald, if
>> you could try that, it would be helpful.
>
>...here you are some results of today's tree-ssa branch without and with
>this change for the testcase from PR8361. :-)
Why don't you give your test another whirl. With Andrew's DCE fix, my CCP
fix and Jason's C++ EH fixes you should see a noticable improvement.
Known performance work still in the queue:
Diego's CCP fixes.
There's still unnecessary edges in the CFG
Jeff