This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C++ compile-time regressions
- To: aoliva at redhat dot com
- Subject: Re: C++ compile-time regressions
- From: Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot COM>
- Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 12:35:33 -0700 (PDT)
- Cc: mark at codesourcery dot com (Mark Mitchell), pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at (Gerald Pfeifer), jbuck at synopsys dot com (Joe Buck), gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org (gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org), gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org (gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org)
> >> But I wonder if the default value of PARAM_MAX_INLINE_INSNS should be
> >> a property of the target machine. Different targets have different
> >> INSN densities. I don't know how much this changes from one target to
> >> another in the early rtl stages used for rtl inlining, though... Does
> >> anyone more experienced think it would be worth the trouble? I could
> >> produce a patch to make the default target-modifiable.
> > I think we're tackling this from the wrong angle.
> I think I wasn't clear. My suggestion didn't mean to affect compile
> time, but rather, to offer a reasonably similar behavior across
> multiple targets, in regards to inlining or not inlining functions.
But you're assuming that the current heuristic approach to inlining is
valid and only the parameter needs adjustment, and proposing a theory
about how it should be adjusted (normalize for instruction density)
without evidence that this is the right thing.