This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Experimenting with tree inliner parameter settings
- From: Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>
- To: Steven Bosscher <s dot bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>
- Cc: dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca, rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de,pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 10:55:10 +0200
- Subject: Re: Experimenting with tree inliner parameter settings
- References: <1052079526.731.235.camel@steven>
Steven Bosscher <s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl> writes:
> Hello,
>
> Andreas Jaeger and I have spent a few cycles this weekend to
> see what the effect is of different tree inline parameters on
> the compile time performance of GCC and the runtime performace
> of the binaries produced by GCC. This wasn't exactly a
> scientifically responsible investigation; it is just an
> attempt to find appropriate default values for the inliner
> parameters.
>
> Andreas has tested 20 different sets of parameters with
> SPECint2000, compiler was GCC 3.4 20030502 CVS. All tests
> were done with the same compiler, i.e. the compiler was not
> bootstrapepd with these param settings. Here are the results
> (non-reportable; built once; two runs per test;
> flags: -O2 -march=athlon):
>
> 1 = max-inline-insns-single == max-inline-insns-auto
> 2 = max-inline-insns
> 3 = min-inline-insns
> 4 = max-inline-slope
The interesting thing is that the final SPEC value stays the same but
some tests improve, others regress:
164.gzip 1400 292 479* 1400 286 489*
176.gcc 1100 293 375* 1100 299 368*
252.eon 1300 232 560* 1300 229 567*
So, the "optimal" value for SPEC is still not found.
Andreas
--
Andreas Jaeger
SuSE Labs aj@suse.de
private aj@arthur.inka.de
http://www.suse.de/~aj