This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: -fobey-inline (was Re: gcc and inlining)

From: Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>
To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
Cc: Bernd Schmidt <bernds at redhat dot com>, Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 11:16:47 -0800
Subject: Re: -fobey-inline (was Re: gcc and inlining)

On Saturday, March 15, 2003, at 07:51 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:

| It's the change in behaviour from previous versions that bothers me, and | this is the reason why I would like something like -fobey-inline as default.
In my opinion, that regression is a reason to really improve the
inlining heuristics, not a reason to add yet another switch.

It is obvious that for C, we should increase the limits. We should increase them until such time as half of the people are complaining they are too high, and half are complaining that they are too small. At that point, we really need to qualitatively improve if people are still complaining. I had them up at 10000 or some such number, then it was dropped way down, 300 or so... Time to bounce it back up.

[ yes, I know just how, uhm, pragmatic, this is. ]

References:
- Re: -fobey-inline (was Re: gcc and inlining)
  - From: Gabriel Dos Reis

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]