This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C++ compile-time regressions
- To: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>
- Subject: Re: C++ compile-time regressions
- From: aoliva at redhat dot com
- Date: 02 Aug 2001 14:41:35 -0300
- Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Organization: GCC Team, Red Hat
- References: <Pine.BSF.4.33.0108011301040.3036-100000@taygeta.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
On Aug 2, 2001, Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
> [ Includes patch. Okay for branch and mainline? ]
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>> 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.
> So, here we go. (The first column is the value of PARAM_MAX_INLINE_INSNS.)
> To me, 600 seems like a definite and affordable improvement here
Great! Thanks for doing this.
But I wonder if the default value of PARAM_MAX_INLINE_INSNS should be
a property of the target machine. Different targets have different
INSN densities. I don't know how much this changes from one target to
another in the early rtl stages used for rtl inlining, though... Does
anyone more experienced think it would be worth the trouble? I could
produce a patch to make the default target-modifiable.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me