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, Richard Guenther <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
On 12/14/06, Jan Hubicka <email@example.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> Committed as obvoius, lets hope that it will bring the memory
> consumption back.
There's more low-hanging fruit (for 64bit systems)
well, escape_mask only needs 9 bits if you want to reduce it further