Re: revised PATCH: CALL_EXPR representation changes, part 0/9 (table of contents)

[Sandra Loosemore <sandra at codesourcery dot com>]

Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Perhaps little analysis would help.  Memory tester now publish stuff on
> webpage http://www.suse.de/~gcctest/memory/ and
> http://www.suse.de/~gcctest/memory/results (I just noticed I forgot to
> link from the main tester page) contains logs.
>
> The logs in question are 
> http://www.suse.de/~gcctest/memory/results/200702160035/pr28071-O1.rep
> (from today)
> http://www.suse.de/~gcctest/memory/results/200702141642/pr28071-O1.rep
> (from day before patch was comitted)
>
> At first glance one curious fact is that:
> stringpool.c:77 (alloc_node)                              0: 0.0% 0: 0.0%    6875024:34.2%     528848: 1.7%      66106
> ggc-common.c:193 (ggc_calloc)                       6470864: 2.8% 5000784: 8.6%    1761064: 8.8%    1068056: 3.4%        516
> changed to:
> stringpool.c:77 (alloc_node)                              0: 0.0% 0: 0.0%    7893912:37.0%     607224: 1.9%      75903
> ggc-common.c:193 (ggc_calloc)                       6733160: 2.9% 5000784: 8.6%    2023176: 9.5%    1068176: 3.4%        517

Yes, curious indeed.  I don't know, off the top of my head, what would account 
for additional identifiers being allocated.  Where is the source code that you 
were using for this test?  The link on the page you listed above gives me a 404 
error.

-Sandra