This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] Preliminary analysis on POOMA slow downs (was Re:[tree-ssa] Speed up constant propagation)
- From: Steven Bosscher <s dot bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>
- To: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- Cc: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>,"gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 22:58:00 +0200
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] Preliminary analysis on POOMA slow downs (was Re:[tree-ssa] Speed up constant propagation)
- References: <6D3DB6D4-A103-11D7-99AC-000A95A34564@dberlin.org>
Daniel Berlin wrote:
On Tuesday, June 17, 2003, at 01:07 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
I'm a bit surprised that the inliner is taking such a big hit.
Hrmmmmm.
Remember we downed INSNS_PER_STMT (tree-inline.c), which increases the
amount of inlining done.
That was done only considering the effects of GIMPLE on C (and even
then, it was a while ago).
It might need reevaluation in light of C++ gimplification, etc.
AFAICT it was never done and INSNS_PER_STMT is 10 on both mainline and
branch.
It looks more like you suffer from the extra pointers from the tree
iterators and from the extra tree copying because GIMPLE has more trees
and unshares everything.
Try setting it to 5 and see what happens.
Fewer insns per statement will only _increase_ the amount of inlining,
so this may not be a good idea.
Gr.
Steven