This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PR 30089: Fix ICE in operand allocation
On 12/14/06, Andrew MacLeod <email@example.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 07:31 -0500, Diego Novillo wrote:
> Jan Hubicka wrote on 12/14/06 05:33:
> > Hi,
> > I would say that this patch is the most likely suspect for memory
> > increase reported for this night. (memory tester jammed, so there are
> > quite few patches cumulated together).
> > It is 12% for insn-attrtrab, but we are still bellow memory usage before
> > your merge and above memory usage before original Daniel's aliasing
> > fixes (that was about 100MB, now we are almost 130)
> It may be, yes. We shouldn't need the static buffer for long,
> hopefully. Andrew is changing this code. I will try to adjust it down
> in the meantime.
It would be odd if this was responsible for a measurable increase in
memory. Its simply the size of the buffer we create to sub-allocate
operands out of.
Err - how could we then ICE running out of space there? Why don't we
simply allocate another one?
I'm sure I'm missing something...