This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C++ compile-time regressions (was: GCC 3.0.1 Status Report)
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Subject: Re: C++ compile-time regressions (was: GCC 3.0.1 Status Report)
- From: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 17:05:54 +0200 (CEST)
- cc: Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
On Tue, 24 Jul 2001, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Would you try experimenting with `--param max-inline-insns=N' for different
> values of N to find where a better compromise is?
Yes, I've been working on this now. To be honest, I don't have time to
do this, but I'll try to have something in time for 3.0.1 -- somehow.
> Realistically, I think we have to be willing to compromise here; the 3.0.1
> compiler is going to be slower *and* probably generate slower code than
> 2.95, which is too bad, but that seems to be where we're at. If we could
> get to 10-25% on both figures that would be better than having one figure
> small and the other massive.
The problem is, on both ends of the scale (that is, either slower code
or slower generation) the *better* value is already around 25%, so a
compromise will be worse than that for *both* values.
> Then, we continue working on Nathan/Daniel's stuff and hope to have it
> ready for 3.1, or maybe even 3.0.2.
That would be great.
A note to all interested parties: While, unfortunately, I cannot make
our sources and benchmark suite freely available (even though I'm trying
to convince my collaborators here at university to do so) I am definitely
willing to provide both to interested GCC developers.
Gerald
--
Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/~pfeifer/