This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH 2/5] completely_scalarize arrays as well as records
- From: Richard Biener <rguenther at suse dot de>
- To: Christophe Lyon <christophe dot lyon at linaro dot org>
- Cc: Alan Lawrence <alan dot lawrence at arm dot com>, martin dot jambor at suse dot cz, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 09:48:21 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] completely_scalarize arrays as well as records
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20150825214232 dot GB12831 at virgil dot suse dot cz> <1440690217-24461-1-git-send-email-alan dot lawrence at arm dot com> <CAKdteOYL373pKpYB2R=6e+mLr5c=EfermXZshSmzOC-B9St6rA at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On 27 August 2015 at 17:43, Alan Lawrence <alan.lawrence@arm.com> wrote:
> > Martin Jambor wrote:
> >>
> >> First, I would be much
> >> happier if you added a proper comment to scalarize_elem function which
> >> you forgot completely. The name is not very descriptive and it has
> >> quite few parameters too.
> >>
> >> Second, this patch should also fix PR 67283. It would be great if you
> >> could verify that and add it to the changelog when committing if that
> >> is indeed the case.
> >
> > Thanks for pointing both of those out. I've added a comment to scalarize_elem,
> > deleted the bogus comment in the new test, and yes I can confirm that the patch
> > fixes PR 67283 on x86_64, and also AArch64 if
> > --param sra-max-scalarization-size-Ospeed is passed. (I've not added any
> > testcase specifically taken from that PR, however.)
> >
> > Pushed as r277265.
>
> Actually, is r227265.
>
> Since since commit I've noticed that
> g++.dg/torture/pr64312.C
> fails at -O1 in my config, saying "virtual memory exhaustion" (arm* targets)
> I run my validations under ulimit -v 10GB, which seems already large enough.
>
> Do we consider this a bug?
Sure we do. You have to investigate this (I guess we run into some
endless looping/recursing that eats memory somewhere).
Richard.