This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug optimization/10679] [3.3/3.4] --param min-inline-insns not honoured
- From: "rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 19 Jul 2003 15:02:39 -0000
- Subject: [Bug optimization/10679] [3.3/3.4] --param min-inline-insns not honoured
- References: <20030508121600.10679.rguenth@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10679
------- Additional Comments From rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de 2003-07-19 15:02 -------
Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4] --param min-inline-insns not
honoured
On 18 Jul 2003, pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu wrote:
> The check is still there but if the function that gcc is inlining is empty (which only happens with the
> new inlining counting mechanism), gcc will now always inline that function so that part is fixed, if
> on the other hand the function is not empty, you can and will hit that limit which you pointed out.
Yes, constructing a testcase for this bug is not easy, but placing a
warning inside the check causes >10000 hits on a medium size POOMA based
application. So this bug really triggers and hurts both runtime and
codesize.
Richard.