On Monday 28 February 2005 10:25, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > I can only wonder why we are having this discussion just after GCC 4.0
> > was branched, while it was obvious already two years ago that inlining
> > heuristics were going to be a difficult item with tree-ssa.
>
> There were of course complaints and discussions about this, and I even
> tried to tweak inlining parameters once.  See the audit trails of PR7863
> and PR8704.  There were people telling me "well in branch XYZ we do so much
> better", as always, so I was not encouraged to persue this further.
>
> Anyway, I think we should try the patch on mainline and I'll plan to
> re-submit it together with a 10% lowering of the inlining parameters
> compared to 3.4 (this is conservative for the mean size change for C code,
> for C++ we're still too high).  I personally cannot afford to do so much
> testing to please everyone.

I tested your -fobey-inline patch a bit using the test case from PR8361.
The run was still going after 3 minutes (without the flag it takes 20s)
so I terminated it and took the following oprofile:

CPU: Hammer, speed 1394.98 MHz (estimated)
Counted CPU_CLK_UNHALTED events (Cycles outside of halt state) with a unit mask 
of 0x00 (No unit mask) count 4000
Counted DATA_CACHE_MISSES events (Data cache misses) with a unit mask of 0x00 
(No unit mask) count 1000
samples  %        samples  %        image name               symbol name
4607300  78.7190  98784    79.4179  cc1plus                  cgraph_remove_edge
861258   14.7152  15308    12.3070  cc1plus                  cgraph_remove_node
60871     1.0400  999       0.8032  cc1plus                  ggc_set_mark
56907     0.9723  2054      1.6513  cc1plus                  cgraph_optimize
36513     0.6239  1132      0.9101  cc1plus                  
cgraph_clone_inlined_nodes
29570     0.5052  843       0.6777  cc1plus                  cgraph_postorder
16187     0.2766  367       0.2951  cc1plus                  ggc_alloc_stat
7787      0.1330  97        0.0780  cc1plus                  
gt_ggc_mx_cgraph_node
6851      0.1171  138       0.1109  cc1plus                  cgraph_edge
6671      0.1140  305       0.2452  cc1plus                  comptypes
5776      0.0987  95        0.0764  cc1plus                  
gt_ggc_mx_cgraph_edge
5243      0.0896  93        0.0748  cc1plus                  
gt_ggc_mx_lang_tree_node

Honza, it seems the cgraph code needs whipping here.

Gr.
Steven

Reply via email to