On 11/26/2010 3:11 AM, Andrew Stubbs wrote: > As we discussed on Monday, I think it might be helpful to get a number > of knowledgeable people together on a call to discuss GCC optimization > opportunities.
I'm not sure I qualify as knowledgeable, and my schedule is a mess, so please don't try to schedule around me -- but please do let me know when the call will be. For big-picture issues, I'd be interested in looking at inlining, both on its own, and in the context of profile-directed feedback. My guess is that we're not inlining enough in hot spots, and too much in cold spots. (The latter is important, in that I expect that overall system performance is impacted by larger binaries, leading to more cache misses and page faults.) As an extension of that idea, and tying into the idea of optimizing for size, I suspect that we (a) ought be optimizing for size automatically in cold code, and (b) that we're probably not doing a great job of optimizing for size. (For example, and making the whole problem circular, I've seen cases where inlining would definitely reduce code size -- but we don't do it. I suspect that cases where many of the arguments to a relatively small function are constants should be considered for inlining even when optimizing for size; you're often going to simplify away the entire function. Perhaps we need to actually be able to try inlining, and back out if it is unprofitable.) Both of these things require some significant infrastructure work. They aren't ARM-specific back-end changes. But, I suspect that they're important in terms of allowing GCC to take full advantage of ARM CPUs. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery m...@codesourcery.com (650) 331-3385 x713 _______________________________________________ linaro-toolchain mailing list linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
