------- Additional Comments From hubicka at ucw dot cz  2004-12-06 12:44 -------
Subject: Re:  [4.0 Regression] Inlining limits cause 340% performance regression

> 
> ------- Additional Comments From rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen 
> dot de  2004-12-06 09:53 -------
> Subject: Re:  [4.0 Regression] Inlining limits
>  cause 340% performance regression
> 
> On 6 Dec 2004, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> 
> > No reason to keep this one open, there is PR 17863 still.  Also note I 
> > heard from Honza that the tree
> > profiling branch with feedback can optimizate better than with your leafy 
> > patch.
> 
> Wow, that would be cool.  Does the tree-profiling branch contain the
> cfg inliner?  I'll try it asap.

The cfg inliner per se is not too interesting.  What matters here is the
code size esitmation and profitability estimation.  I am playing with
this now and trying to get profile based inlining working.

For -n10 and tramp3d.cc I need 2m14s on mainline, 1m31s on the current
tree-profiling.  With my new implementation I need 0m27s with profile
feedback and 2m53s without.  I wonder what makes the new heuristics work
worse without profiling, but just increasing the inline-unit-growth very
slightly (to 155) I get 0m42s.  This might be just little unstability in
the order of inlining decisions affecting this.  I would be curious how
those results compare to leafify and whether the 0m27s is not caused by
missoptimization.

Unless I will observe it otherwise (on SPEC with intermodule), I will
apply my current patch and try to improve the profitability analysis
without profiling incrementally.  Ideally we ought to build estimated
profile and use it, but that needs some work so for the moment I guess I
will try to experiment with making loop depth available to the cgraph
code.

Honza
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> 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

Reply via email to