This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PR 10196 / Re: Inliner parameters
- From: Richard Guenther <rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de>
- To: Steven Bosscher <s dot bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 14:06:31 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: PR 10196 / Re: Inliner parameters
On 23 Apr 2003, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Op wo 23-04-2003, om 13:36 schreef Richard Guenther:
> >
> > which is _a lot_ better, but still a 19% regression for -fno-exceptions
> > and a 22% regression for -fexceptions. But as these numbers are below
> > 30%, we can now downgrade the priority of the PR?
>
> Part of that 30% can probably be explained with PR 8361, but inlining
> still is slower, and there should be a PR for that, I think.
>
> So I propose we close PR 10316, and we either close 10196 and open a new
> PR for the inliner slowdown, or we leave 10196 open with a remark in the
> audit trail. Does that sound OK to you?
I assumed the inliner slowdown was resolved by marks first patch (a month
ago), and now the EH problem was solved. I propose to close the PR, as the
audit trail is already quite huge. I'll check the EH/inliner problems
seperately again and open two PRs tracking them separately, if necessary.
Richard.
--
Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at uni-tuebingen dot de>
WWW: http://www.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de/~rguenth/