On Feb 27, 2005 02:04 AM, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In the end we surely want to watch CiSBE and SPEC testers.
Maybe so, but your timings already show this is pretty unacceptable.
Well, the compile time regressions are not caused by my patch but only exposed by them. Previously we were saying "hey, we are as fast as 3.4", but really comparing apples and oranges, as we regress badly in
performance by just doing less work due to less inlining. If you want
to throttle that back, you can as well, as a followup patch, reduce
inlining limits. That of course doesn't remove the conceptual improvement of estimating the size of an inlined indirection the same
as the actual function.
How do you suppose we fix the three-fold run-time performance regressions I and other people see for their scientific code?
Richard.
