On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 02:04:19 +0100, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Steven Bosscher wrote: > > On Saturday 26 February 2005 23:03, Jan Hubicka wrote: > > > >>Mark? I would say that there is little risk in this patch corectness > >>wise, might have negative effect on compilation times since we re-start > >>inlining more like we did in old days. > > > > > > Can we see some timings with and without this patch? > > tramp3d-v3 -O3 compile- and run-times without checking are > > compile size run > 3.4 1m7s 4421288 51s > 4.0 1m2s 4531197 1m57s > 4.0 patched 2m39s 5391554 27s > 3.4 leafify 1m36s 4539503 34s > 4.0 leafify 1m52s 4844784 15s
Further testing shows that the tramp3d testcase benefits most by the removed abstraction penalty. With --param max-inline-insns-auto=80 --param max-inline-insns-single=80 we get 4.0 0m55s 4663068 45s 4.0 patched 1m32s 5069229 26s uh oh? I don't understand the unpatched number - that looks like we do not "sort" our inlining decisions to first. 500 as default for max-inline-insns-single looks very large anyway. --param max-inline-insns-auto=50 --param max-inline-insns-single=50 4.0 0m49s 4749444 1m2s 4.0 patched 0m58s 4952254 40s
