This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug middle-end/46554] New: Less inlining leads to CSiBE regression
- From: "hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 08:24:39 +0000
- Subject: [Bug middle-end/46554] New: Less inlining leads to CSiBE regression
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46554
Summary: Less inlining leads to CSiBE regression
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassigned@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: hubicka@gcc.gnu.org
Created attachment 22451
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22451
testcase flex-2.5.31/regex.c
The loss here is not inlining regmatch_len. The catch is that the test if (m ==
((void *)0) || m->rm_so < 0) is tested before all uses of regmatch_len and thus
optimized out. So it simplifies into m->rm_so < 0 test and arithmetic that
ends up being cheaper than call.
int regmatch_len (regmatch_t * m)
{
if (m == ((void *)0) || m->rm_so < 0) {
return 0;
}
return m->rm_eo - m->rm_so;
}
It is used as:
if (m == ((void *)0) || m->rm_so < 0)
return 0;
if (regmatch_len (m) < 20)
s = regmatch_cpy (m, buf, src);
else
s = regmatch_dup (m, src);
Tricky. Inliner sees it as:
Analyzing function body size: regmatch_len
freq: 1000 size: 2 time: 2 if (m_2(D) == 0B)
freq: 898 size: 1 time: 1 D.7268_3 = m_2(D)->rm_so;
50% will be eliminated by inlining
freq: 898 size: 2 time: 2 if (D.7268_3 < 0)
freq: 726 size: 1 time: 1 D.7270_4 = m_2(D)->rm_eo;
50% will be eliminated by inlining
freq: 726 size: 1 time: 1 D.7268_5 = m_2(D)->rm_so;
50% will be eliminated by inlining
freq: 726 size: 1 time: 1 D.7269_6 = D.7270_4 - D.7268_5;
freq: 1000 size: 1 time: 2 return D.7269_1;
will eliminated by inlining
Overall function body time: 9-3 size: 11-5
With function call overhead time: 9-15 size: 11-8
I can imagine we can try to get summary based on value ranges, instead of known
constants, do early VRP and work out first test well.
Even optimizing the first conditoinal away won't make it inlined, it will be
still considered to have size 9, so code will be expected to grow by 1 byte.
Optimizing second conditoinal is even trickier.
The code can be optimized away by IP-value range propagation that would
be interesting optimization to have...