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: Inlining vs the stack

From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
To: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
Cc: Paul Koning <pkoning at equallogic dot com>, mrs at apple dot com, dalej at apple dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 10:50:51 -0700
Subject: Re: Inlining vs the stack
References: <ba8580523fd097c9e6354b66a8ad6476@apple.com> <1D3D893A-5D2C-4E57-929D-14C23F612AAA@apple.com> <17148.63375.251542.283556@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <20050812203533.GG4870@kam.mff.cuni.cz>

On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 10:35:33PM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Unforutnately the actual size we want to limit is somewhat variable (for
> kernel it is pretty small, in usual case few hounderd K is probably good
> choice).

I disagree.  If recusion is involved, even a few K may be unacceptable.
That can mean the difference between being able to recurse 500k times
and being able to recurse only 100k times.

I would think that, in the extreme, we don't want *any* stack 
expansion, but in the norm a percentage expansion.

r~

References:
- Inlining vs the stack
  - From: Dale Johannesen
- Re: Inlining vs the stack
  - From: Mike Stump
- Re: Inlining vs the stack
  - From: Paul Koning
- Re: Inlining vs the stack
  - From: Jan Hubicka

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