On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 08:23, Michael Matz wrote:
> The obvious question: have you measured performance (with an optimized
> cc1) on a medium sized exectutable, say cc1 itself? (I'm worrying about
> inlining that doesn't happen anymore).
I compared three things: profiled bootstrap time for C,
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 04:45, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> 5- Handle CALL_EXPR in lto_materialize_tree. Despite the name this is
>> a generic tree streaming function (the renaming patch will come
>> in the next few days). Handling CALL_EXPR does not
>> affect LTO (since those nodes are
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 08:23, Michael Matz wrote:
> The obvious question: have you measured performance (with an optimized
> cc1) on a medium sized exectutable, say cc1 itself? (I'm worrying about
> inlining that doesn't happen anymore).
Ah, good point. No, I haven't. I'll measure it.
Dieg
Hi,
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011, Diego Novillo wrote:
>The API in the tree streamer offers functions to read/write the
>tree header and the body, a streamer cache and everything that
>used to be inside the LTO streamer. This makes no difference to
>LTO, since it simply means that some fo
