This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Sigh. Inlining heuristics.
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Subject: Re: Sigh. Inlining heuristics.
- From: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Date: 10 Jul 2001 19:06:09 -0300
- Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds at transmeta dot com>, "dan at cgsoftware dot com" <dan at cgsoftware dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Organization: GCC Team, Red Hat
- References: <17870000.994796255@warlock.codesourcery.com>
On Jul 10, 2001, Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> --On Tuesday, July 10, 2001 05:31:52 PM -0300 Alexandre Oliva
> <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 10, 2001, Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I suggest we drop it to 100 or 1000 instructions by default, and see
>>> how that does.
>>
>> How about defaulting to 10^{1+n} for -On?
I forgot to mention it should saturate on -O3, since -O3 has been
equivalent to -On for n > 3.
> Sure. It seems like we all agree the current number is too big; picking
> a better one is a matter of experimenting a little bit. Your scheme
> seems as good a guess as any, to me. My *guess* it will still actually
> pessimize code at -O3
But then, that's often said to already the case for -O3, isn't it?
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me