This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: tree-ssa memory and compile-time regressions
> On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> > > >
> > > > Deciding on smaller functions:
> > > >
> > > > Considering Interval<Dim>::~Interval() [with int Dim = 3] with 0 insns
> > > > Estimated growth is -1390 insns.
> > > > Inlined into EvaluateLocLoop<Forgas::APressure<3>, 3>::~EvaluateLocLoop()
> > > > which now has -10 insns.
> > > > Inlined into INode<Dim>::~INode() [with int Dim = 3] which now has -10
> > > > insns.
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > negative code sizes don't look right? So out of zero instruction inline
> > > > we generate -1390 instructions? Here's something wrong. Like (unchecked):
> > >
> > > THis should not happen as size of call is 10 and thus the size should
> > > never get negative. I will add abort here and figure out what is going
> > > on.
> > I can not get to your website for some reason, but I would guess that
> > the attached patch will fix it. I cut&pasted the new nodes to wrong
> > place in function so we didn't count anything embeded in EH regions.
>
> Yes, this fixes it. Strange we get EH regions with -fno-exceptions?
I think we are supposed to clean that up later while lowering EH.
I've commited that patch as obvious. Thanks!
Honza