This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Inlining and estimate_num_insns
- From: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>
- To: Steven Bosscher <stevenb at suse dot de>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>,Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>,Giovanni Bajo <giovannibajo at libero dot it>,Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>
- Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 15:43:45 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: Inlining and estimate_num_insns
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0502241350470.2297-100000@alwazn.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de><20050301010357.GH22361@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <200503010230.46523.stevenb@suse.de><200503011944.20854.stevenb@suse.de>
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>>> You still didn't get into the fun part of actually inlining all the
>>> inlines in in Gerald's testcase ;)
> It got killed on a box with 4GB of RAM after 11 hours and 43 minutes
> with "virtual memory exhausted: Cannot allocate memory". In the
> latest oprofiles, the cgraph functions still accounted for more than
> 95% of the time, so probably it was still inlining things.
We've got some "slightly" bigger machines here, and once the cgraph
stuff has been partly addressed, I'd love to see what happens on one
of these (and then do benchmarks to see how going down that extreme
path affects run-time performance, given current cache sizes).
Gerald