This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: 3.2 vs 3.1 speed
- From: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
- To: law at redhat dot com
- Cc: Dan Nicolaescu <dann at godzilla dot ICS dot UCI dot EDU>,"David S. Miller" <davem at redhat dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,"Vladimir N. Makarov" <vmakarov at redhat dot com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 13:33:37 +0200
- Subject: Re: 3.2 vs 3.1 speed
- References: <200206051353.aa01413@gremlin-relay.ics.uci.edu> <5138.1023311182@porcupine.cygnus.com>
> In message <200206051353.aa01413@gremlin-relay.ics.uci.edu>, Dan Nicolaescu wri
> tes:
> >
> > One of the reasons that 3.2 is slower than 3.1 is that 3.2 just
> > generates a lot more RTL (also see the huge increase in time spent in
> > expand).
> Which is rather curious. What would be even more interesting would be to know
> how much of that RTL is due to the RTL inliner and how much is due to the
> tree inliner.
Is the RTL inliner still used? I don't think so.
There has been changes to the inlining heuristics, so I guess that will
explain the degradation. Would be possible to know the full -fno-inline
comparisons?
Honza
>
> jeff
>