https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65076
--- Comment #45 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz> --- > Like Richard wrote in comment 38 it is "phase opt and generate" that regresses Yes, but is it regression bcause of one specific pass shown later or is it just a cummulative effect of many little slowdown? > for me. > Code size difference is OK now (1% bigger on X86, 2% smaller on ppc64). Thanks, so we are in sync here now. (I need to build nonprofiledbootstrap 4.9 to get easiler baseline results, rebuilding each time with profiledbootstrap and LTO to compare is boring) > > And I have pointed to r219452 in comment0, but haven't double checked yet. > (r219452 is: > 2015-01-12 Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz> > > PR ipa/63967 > PR ipa/64425 > * ipa-inline.c (compute_uninlined_call_time, > ...) Yes, this is the heuristic change that triggered the code size growth that seemed like a logical explanation for the compile time regression. However now the size and function count regression is solved and we still have 10% slower compile time. So we must trigger something in one of the optimization passes (or we produce a lot more code after inlining, I will re-do my non-LTO compares) Honza
