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: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
- Cc: Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>, 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 11:19:26 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: Re: -fobey-inline (was Re: gcc and inlining)
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Backwards inlining is now possible on the trunk thanks to Jan's
> unit-at-once work.
I thought this did not work for C++ yet. At least I'm happy with g++ 3.3
performance now as I figured out the right knobs.
Richard.
--
Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at uni-tuebingen dot de>
WWW: http://www.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de/~rguenth/