This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug target/67492] insn-attrtab and insn-automata for arm target neede huge amount of memory to generate/compile
- From: "ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2015 10:46:55 +0000
- Subject: [Bug target/67492] insn-attrtab and insn-automata for arm target neede huge amount of memory to generate/compile
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-67492-4 at http dot gcc dot gnu dot org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67492
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC| |ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
--- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Michael Weiser from comment #4)
> Okay, I can see this is headed for a WONTFIX. Can you please answer my
> questions before we chuck it?
>
> 1. How hard would it be or is there even some effort/patch to make gcc only
> compile in support for a selected number of CPUs of a given target,
> indirectly reducing size of insn-attrtab/insn-automata?
There's no effort to do that that I know of. There are ways to reduce the
automaton size, but that involves modifying the pipeline descriptions
(<core-name>.md files) and as such would require a lot of
benchmarking/validation to make sure it doesn't regress code quality.
>
> 2. Incidentally: Is my patch likely to produce a seriously broken compiler?
Well, it's definitely not appropriate for submission upstream. Just removing
cores is not the way to go.
If that's a patch you want to use privately for your arm board and you only
ever expect to compile for a single -mcpu then I suppose it may work, but don't
expect any support for it ;)
>
> Thanks!