This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: 3.3 compile time regression (22400%)
- From: Richard Guenther <rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de>
- To: Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:55:33 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: Re: 3.3 compile time regression (22400%)
On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> > The picture does change if I specify -fno-default-inline,
>
> This means, that probably all the in-class definitions of functions are
> the culprit (which are equivalent to being declared inline). You might
> want to play with "--param bla=value", where "bla" is
> max-inline-insns-single (300) and max-inline-insns-auto (300). The
> numbers are the default. Try to make them smaller to limit the inlining.
> The first parameter should apply to these functions, but I'm not
> sure it does.
Heh - I usually use --param max-inline-insns=10000000 to get good code
output from gcc..., but I'll try.
> Also you might want to create a profilable gcc, and find the hotspot
> functions. expand really shouldn't take _that_ much more time than all
> the other passes, even if inlining goes crazy (because normally also some
> other passes should take much time then).
Yes, I wait for Karel to report if specifying -fno-default-inline helps
for him first, though.
Richard.
--
Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at uni-tuebingen dot de>
WWW: http://www.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de/~rguenth/