This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC inline parameters (PR 10160 testcase)
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at libertysurf dot fr>
- Cc: John David Anglin <dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 02 May 2003 14:36:00 -0700
- Subject: Re: GCC inline parameters (PR 10160 testcase)
- Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
- References: <200305021825.h42IPmxv027818@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca> <019601c310ef$ec191200$c47224d5@fr>
On Fri, 2003-05-02 at 14:14, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > 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.
Hmm; I didn't know we'd changed our inlining heuristics to have this
You can, however, set that to zero using --params.
But, I think the scheduler is your real problem here; there shouldn't be
n^2 algorithms in there, unless they have clamps.
Mark Mitchell <email@example.com>