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: Fix PR57268


Here is the corrected version of change. Also, I think, I need
write-after-approval access to commit the change.
                thanks, Dinar,

        PR rtl-optimization/57268
        * sched-deps.c (sched_analyze_2): Flush dependence lists if
        the sum of the read and write lists exceeds MAX_PENDING_LIST_LENGTH.

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 05/29/2013 06:52 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Dinar Temirbulatov wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>> I noticed that the scheduler created long dependence list about ~9000
>>> elements long and slowed compilation time for about an hour. Attached
>>> patch flushes the dependence list is case of it is longer than
>>> MAX_PENDING_LIST_LENGTH. Tested with gcc testsite on x86_64-linux-gnu
>>> with c and c++ enabled. Ok for trunk?
>>>             thanks, Dinar.
>>>
>>> 2013-05-28 Dinar Temirbulatov <dinar at kugelworks dot com>
>>>
>>>              PR rtl-optimization/57268
>>>              * sched-deps.c (sched_analyze_2): Flush dependence list
>>> then it is longer than MAX_PENDING_LIST_LENGTH.
>>
>>
>>
>>          * sched-deps.c (sched_analyze_2): Flush dependence lists if
>>          the sum of the read and write lists exceeds
>> MAX_PENDING_LIST_LENGTH.
>>
>>
>>
>>>           if (!deps->readonly)
>>> -          add_insn_mem_dependence (deps, true, insn, x);
>>> +          {
>>> +           if ((deps->pending_read_list_length +
>>> deps->pending_write_list_length)
>>> +                   > MAX_PENDING_LIST_LENGTH)
>>> +                 flush_pending_lists (deps, insn, true, true);
>>> +            add_insn_mem_dependence (deps, true, insn, x);
>>> +        }
>>
>>
>> The "flush_pending_lists", "add_insn_mem_dependence" and "}" lines are
>> not indented correctly. The if (...+...) line is too long (max. 80
>> characters per line). The GCC style would be
>>
>>          if (!deps->readonly)
>>            {
>>              if ((deps->pending_read_list_length
>>                   + deps->pending_write_list_length)
>>                  > MAX_PENDING_LIST_LENGTH)
>>                flush_pending_lists (deps, insn, true, true);
>>              add_insn_mem_dependence (deps, true, insn, x);
>>            }
>>
>> (The aesthetics of GCC code style is a matter for debate, but not here
>> and now ;-)
>
> And just to be clear, with Steven's suggested changes, this patch is OK.
>
> jeff


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