> > On 3/12/06, Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Yes, why is the benchmark not valid? > > > > It is valid. We should understand why this behavior has changed so > > drastically. > This benchmark maybe useless, it still exposes a weakness of gcc4. At > least it's not news to me: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21195 > > So that PR has been closed when gcc-devs marked all those intrinsics > as force_inline. That's also the kludge i use with my code. The real > problem is once you start marking some functions as force_inline, you > upset the inlining heuristic even more creating even more silly > inlining misses, rince, repeat. > At the end of the day, everything is marked either force_inline or > noinline and you'd be better off without a heuristic at all.
Actually the best way of improving the inline heuristics is to get a real testcase (and not some benchmark) where the inline heuristics is messed up. Now SSE intrinsics are special in that they should be always inlined and that fact should be hidden from the user. Maybe they should be rewritten so that they are just like the altivec intrinsics in that it is just a plain #define and nothing special to the user and no worrying about the inlining heuristic. I should note that always inline was added for altivec intrinsics in the first place and they have now since been rewritten. Also the kernel uses always inline but I and other feels that is a mistake. -- Pinski
