Reducing compilation memory usage

[Alejandro Pulver]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:07:29 -0500
Tom St Denis <tstdenis@ellipticsemi.com> wrote:

> Andrew Haley wrote:
> > Tony Wetmore wrote:
> >> Alejandro Pulver wrote:
> >>  >> RAM!  Of course we could make gcc more economical, and
> >>  >> we could somewhat reduce memory usage, but you're asking
> >>  >> for something really hard.
> >>  >
> >>  > I wasn't asking to change the program, I was just asking
> >>  > if there is an already existing option.
> >>
> >> I think Andrew may have meant that you are asking GCC to do something 
> >> really hard, to optimize a single function that is so large.  And 
> >> asking the compiler to do something that hard has a price -- it 
> >> requires lots of memory, as you have discovered.
> >
> > I was saying exactly that, thank you for clarifying.
> >
> > The thing to realize is that it is really hard to do a great job of 
> > optimizing
> > huge functions.  So, it's quite likely that gcc will do a better job of
> > optimizing a bunch of small functions, with well-contained locality of 
> > variables,
> > than one huge function.
> >
> > OK, so you will have the overhead of a function call.  But on most 
> > architectures
> > that isn't enormous.
> 
> Dropping some Friday afternoon pair of cents ...
> 
> You shouldn't really have large functions unless their machine made 
> anyways.  And even then it's best to try and factor them as much as 
> possible.  In one of my math libraries I have huge unrolled multipliers, 
> for things like 1024x1024 bit multiplications (on a 32-bit platform that 
> means 1024 MULADD macros).  Originally, I had all of the multipliers 
> [different functions] in a single .C file which was machine generated.  
> Later I found GCC performs much better on the same code if I left it one 
> huge function per file.
> 
> Anyways ... on code that's human-written, you should never really run 
> into any of these sorts of limits.  Otherwise, you're not thinking about 
> your design properly.
> 
> Tom

I'll see how it goes with functions. However a jump table is just a
reference to an array index plus a jump there. With functions, it has
to set the return address and pass variables (creating a new context),
in addition to the jump. Well, in different architectures this could
perform different, and passing variables could be avoided by using
global variables.

Thanks to all of you for the answers. About the compiler I'm very happy
with it, just wanted to do some crazy things.

BTW without the optimizations, it's as fast as the closest competitor.

Best Regards,
Ale
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-help/attachments/20080121/8614ea95/attachment-0001.sig>