Re: C++ compile-time regressions (was: GCC 3.0.1 Status Report)

[Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>]

> No. Not yet. :-(  Performance benchmarks are *detrimental*. Desastrous.
> :-(

Would you try experimenting with `--param max-inline-insns=N' for different
values of N to find where a better compromise is?  (It looks like perhaps
100 was too small.  Daniel also indicated the heuristic used to approximate
instructions from statements wasn't scaled quite right, so 100 isn't really
a literal value here.)

You might have already done this experiment, in which case you could submit
a patch to pick a better value.

Realistically, I think we have to be willing to compromise here; the 3.0.1 
compiler is going to be slower *and* probably generate slower code than 
2.95, which is too bad, but that seems to be where we're at.  If we could
get to 10-25% on both figures that would be better than having one figure
small and the other massive.

Then, we continue working on Nathan/Daniel's stuff and hope to have it
ready for 3.1, or maybe even 3.0.2.

-- Mark