This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug lto/54966] Does LTO requires a larger inline-unit-growth?
- From: "vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 13:19:42 +0000
- Subject: [Bug lto/54966] Does LTO requires a larger inline-unit-growth?
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-54966-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54966
--- Comment #11 from vincenzo Innocente <vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch> 2012-11-12 13:19:42 UTC ---
much better with
gcc version 4.8.0 20121112 (experimental) [trunk revision 193427] (GCC)
but for "size 6. v1" with lto
[innocent@vinavx0 bugs48]$ c++ -Ofast smatrix.ii -march=native ; taskset -c 2
./a.out
size 5. v1: time in cycles 6925.32
size 5. v2: time in cycles 2123.49
size 5. v3: time in cycles 1067.43
size 6. v1: time in cycles 31216.7
size 6. v2: time in cycles 3521.98
size 6. v3: time in cycles 2523.74
[innocent@vinavx0 bugs48]$ c++ -Ofast smatrix.ii -march=native -flto; taskset
-c 2 ./a.out
size 5. v1: time in cycles 6367.09
size 5. v2: time in cycles 1181.97
size 5. v3: time in cycles 1194.82
size 6. v1: time in cycles 34811.5
size 6. v2: time in cycles 1909.71
size 6. v3: time in cycles 1803.48
of course inlining also the case " v1" would be even better !(the code is
equivalent to v2 and v3)
I've some other more complex functions where inline is "different" than 4.7.2
but not necessarily better
will try to cut a test case