This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: -fobey-inline (was Re: gcc and inlining)
- From: Richard Guenther <rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de>
- To: Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>
- Cc: Stuart Hastings <stuart at apple dot com>, Matt Austern <austern at apple dot com>, Ron Price <ronp at apple dot com>, Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:08:09 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: Re: -fobey-inline (was Re: gcc and inlining)
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 01:07 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > I finally got the patch work for C++ (see attached patch - maybe
> > completely bogous, though...). An I have some numbers for you:
>
> If you could, find the various flags that control inlining, and bump
> the numbers up until you get similar number to (or better than) this
> flag. Then tell us what those numbers were, then we can consider
> upping those numbers. Also, tell us the language, I assume it was C++.
I think the problems come from the fact we dont do backwards inlining
and my code (Pooma, lots of recursive template metaprogramming) is no
good measure for general applicable inlining limits (at least in the
current gcc metric). So I suspect if we up the limits so I get decent
code, others would be seriously suffering.
But anyway - I'll try and report them.
Oh - I still like this patch or some equivalent to be included in gcc 3.3
of course ;)
Richard.
--
Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at uni-tuebingen dot de>
WWW: http://www.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de/~rguenth/