This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: 25% memory requirement regression since yesterday
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Richard Guenther <rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 07:24:13 -0700
- Subject: Re: 25% memory requirement regression since yesterday
- Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
- References: <Pine.LNX.email@example.com>
Richard Guenther wrote:
I'll look into that. Do you have data about compile-times, or just
about memory usage?
The tramp3d tracker caught a memory requirement regression for C++ on
mainline inbetween (excluding)
2004-07-11 Mark Mitchell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
* cp-tree.h (saved_scope): Make old_bindings a vector.
* name-lookup.h (cxx_saved_binding): Define it.
* class.c (pushclass): Don't use unuse_fields.
* name-lookup.c (cxx_saved_binding_make): Remove.
(store_binding): Add new bindings to a vector, using an
accumulator style, rather than adding them to a list.
(store_bindings): Adjust accordingly.
also compile-time regressed somewhat. Have a look at
for both detailled graphs and the testcase.