This is the mail archive of the 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: Speedup CSE by 5%

On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 15:22 +0100, Arend Bayer wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 23:22:28 +0100 (CET), Arend Bayer
> > <> wrote:
> > > 
> > > This patch integrates approx_reg_cost() and approx_reg_cost_1() into one
> > > function by not using for_each_rtx(): The overhead of the additional
> > > function calls and some additional branches of the for_each_rtx()
> > > construction turn out to be significant performance-wise. I don't think
> > > the resulting code is less clear.
> > 
> > Why is this not optimized by gcc itself?  Does marking approx_reg_cost_1
> > inline help?
> Apart from the fact that this would need intermodule optimization, the
> problem is:
> GCC would first need to inline for_each_rtx, a recursive function, into
> approx_reg_cost, and change the recursive calls to for_each_rtx into
> recursive calls to approx_reg_cost. I would be highly surprised if you
> told me that GCC is able to do that.
Presumably the real gain here is the inlining of for_each_rtx, not
the inlining of approx_reg_cost_1 into approx_reg_cost.  Right?


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