This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC inline parameters (PR 10160 testcase)
- From: "Eric Botcazou" <ebotcazou at libertysurf dot fr>
- To: "John David Anglin" <dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca>
- Cc: "Mark Mitchell" <mark at codesourcery dot com>,<gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>,<gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 23:14:15 +0200
- Subject: Re: GCC inline parameters (PR 10160 testcase)
- References: <200305021825.h42IPmxv027818@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca>
> I believe that we are about to ship 3.3 with a set of inline parameter
> defaults that are way too agressive. These can cause huge increases
> in compilation time and memory over that with a more conservative
> set of parameters.
I think it's even worse: the new heuristics of the tree inliner is simply
broken, period. See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2003-04/msg00871.html for my
own take on PR 10160.
> This has been discussed before and Mark made some improvements.
> However, PR 10160 hasn't been resolved and the problem with the
> default inline parameter set remains.
Yes, I personally would consider it as a show stopper. GCC 3.3 will require
a 2 GHz box with 1 GB of RAM to compile some heavy C++ programs in a
reasonable amount of time. You'd better live in the x86 world, otherwise...