This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PR 30089: Fix ICE in operand allocation
Jan Hubicka wrote on 12/14/06 11:24:
OK. I did one run with a reduced buffer size but, strangely, in some
cases I got slight memory usage *increases*. I only test by looking at
the last column of -ftime-report, so I don't know how precise that is.
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.
looks like I incorrectly blamed you instead of myself. At least one
problem is that statement annotation grew up rather than reduced with my
histogram change. This is because I moved bitfields down in the
structure to allow better packing on 64bit and wrongly updated after
Would you mind testing this in your memory tester?
--- tree-ssa-operands.h (revision 119857)
+++ tree-ssa-operands.h (working copy)
@@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ struct vuse_optype_d
typedef struct vuse_optype_d *vuse_optype_p;
-#define SSA_OPERAND_MEMORY_SIZE (511 * sizeof (struct vuse_optype_d))
+#define SSA_OPERAND_MEMORY_SIZE (95 * sizeof (struct vuse_optype_d))
struct ssa_operand_memory_d GTY((chain_next("%h.next")))