> Steven Bosscher wrote: > >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.
Agreed here (this is mostly one of reasons why I hoped I won't need to touch 4.0 inlining limits too much since I was affraid of the slowdowns, yours benchmarks are however pretty convincing especially that there are obviously more than single application hitting this) , but I am really unsure we want to see the slowdown. Can you, please, try to experiment a bit about how low you can go with the tests to not ruin the performkance. I will do some additional testing on Gerald's application and SPEC testers hopefully tonight - I am recovering from yesterday disk crash and day before yesterday exam... uhm. Honza > > How do you suppose we fix the three-fold run-time performance > regressions I and other people see for their scientific code? > > Richard.
