This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH][C++] Annotate more functions with MEM-STATs
- From: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- To: Richard Biener <rguenther at suse dot de>
- Cc: gcc-patches List <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 21:45:04 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH][C++] Annotate more functions with MEM-STATs
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <alpine.LSU.2.20.1702171240160.8538@zhemvz.fhfr.qr>
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 6:51 AM, Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de> wrote:
>
> The following annotates two key wrappers around copy_node in the C++ FE
> with MEM-STAT info (and with CXX_MEM_STAT_INFO this is surprisingly
> easy, without adding _stat variants and macros as we have for the classic
> way from the pre-C++ era).
>
> It also annotates more type building functions in tree.c (all in the
> attempt to get a better idea on where all the types are built for C++
> sources).
>
> Bootstrapped without --enable-gather-detailed-mem-stats, bootstrapped
> with --enable-gather-detailed-mem-stats and visually inspected the
> improved stats on some example C++ code.
>
> There are still some more functions worth annotating:
>
> tree.c:8239 (build_range_type_1) 840: 0.0%
> 666120: 3.2%
> tree.c:8362 (build_array_type_1) 3024: 0.0%
> 671496: 3.2%
> tree.c:4841 (build_type_attribute_qual_variant) 13776: 0.1%
> 67032: 0.3%
> tree.c:8681 (build_method_type_directly) 41832: 0.3%
> 202944: 1.0%
> hash-table.h:736 (expand) 15136: 0.1%
> 5826600: 27.8%
> tree.c:8532 (build_function_type) 148344: 1.1%
> 3538080: 16.9%
> cp/lex.c:556 (retrofit_lang_decl) 78628: 0.6%
> 43776: 0.2%
> cp/lex.c:526 (build_lang_decl_loc) 87968: 0.6%
> 260776: 1.2% 3902184: 7.5% 536840: 23.8% 15444
>
> is it ok if I go forward with this (at this stage, also for C++
> specifics above?)
>
> Would it be welcome to scrap _stat and the macro wrappings everywhere
> at this stage?
The patch looks fine to me, I don't have an opinion about
appropriateness for this stage.
Jason