------- Additional Comments From hubicka at ucw dot cz 2004-11-29 14:06 ------- Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] Inlining limits cause 340% performance regression
> > ------- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-11-29 > 11:36 ------- > Honza is the one that plays with inlining, I'm CC:ing him on this bug. Well, I am not quite sure how much we can do here. Pooma testcase is one of very unusual pieces of code from inliner point of view and the current defualt of 50% compile unit growth is already much higher than what most of other compilers does (with intermodule the defaults tends to be somewhere in 15%). As the compile unit gets bigger, the overall unit growth is more important (for instance for SPEC we never hit the overall growth when compiling it one file by one, but when doing IMA we hit it in most programs), so making the limit arbitrary high has very large effect on code size, compilation time and sometimes it degrades speed as well as we run out of icache. The fact that we fail to do resonable job on Pooma is more a result of very poor analysis of beneficts of the inlining (we probably inline things that don't matter and miss the things that does). This is slowly getting better on tree-profiling branch (and adding infrastructure for this is one of it's main points) so it might be interesting try to see how it scales on this testcase.... I don't think bumping the overall unit growith too high is good idea, but perhaps we can figure out if something is getting overestimated... Honza > > -- > What |Removed |Added > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > CC| |hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot > | |org > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18704 > > ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- > You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18704
