This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: PR 30089: Fix ICE in operand allocation


Jan Hubicka wrote on 12/14/06 11:24:
Hi,
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 your merge.

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.

Would you mind testing this in your memory tester?


Index: tree-ssa-operands.h
===================================================================
--- 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")))
 {

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]