------- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de 2010-03-28 17:00 ------- Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] 0.5% code size regression caused by r147852
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote: > ------- Comment #19 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-03-28 16:56 ------- > Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] 0.5% code size > regression caused by r147852 > > > > > There is also some miscounting of overall unit size, Micha has a patch > > > > for > > > > that (but it completely chokes tramp3d results). There is also the > > > > > > Where is the patch? > > > > Somewhere - you have to as Micha. > > I think I saw one but it was wrong. I would be interested to at least know > what this patch is about :) It's about not accounting static called once functions twice when decreasing overall unit size. > > In theory not. In practice it removes the iteration if I remember > > correctly. > > Yes, but that should not affect the metrics (hopefully) > Anyway the 4.6 inliner will probably again behave quite differently - I want > to > get FRE > early, possibly get partial inlining done and we will have IPA AA that all > affects effectivity > of inlining. Of course. Richard. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40436
