This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: GCC inline parameters (PR 10160 testcase)


On Fri, 2003-05-02 at 15:01, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Op vr 02-05-2003, om 23:36 schreef Mark Mitchell:
> > 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
> > MIN_INLINE_INSNS concept.
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> No, that inliner heuristic is just wrong.  See PR 10155 for example.

Why do you say that?

The end of that PR points at a quadratic algorithm elsewhere in the
compiler.

-- 
Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
CodeSourcery, LLC


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