Re: Tree inlining for the C front end (part 3 of 3)

[Daniel Berlin <dan at cgsoftware dot com>]

On Tuesday, September 25, 2001, at 09:15  AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:

> On Sep 25, 2001, Daniel Berlin <dan@cgsoftware.com> wrote:
>
>> Not doing performance testing on patches specifically meant to improve
>> performance (Otherwise, why the heck are we doing tree inlining at
>> all?)
>
> See the message I've just posted.
Okey.

>
>> Had performance testing been done, it would have been noticed that it
>> made 0% difference.
>
> I guess performance testing was done at the time store motion was
> implemented.  I suspect it ended up broken because of countless
> merges, possibly with errors, before it was contributed.
In this case, this is not possible. It couldn't have ever worked 
properly.  In fact, I have a tree from the day it was introduced into 
red hat's source tree (months before it was contributed, IIRC), and it 
was broken in the exact same way.  If that piece had been fixed, in 
actuality, it would have been noticed that the rest of it was broken in 
other ways, too.

> This is
> exactly what I'm trying to avoid by contributing this chunk of code as
> early as possible.
I understand that, and don't get me wrong, i'm grateful for the work.  I 
was thinking of doing it myself on the ast-optimizer branch a few months 
ago.
As far as i'm concerned, a 3% difference is acceptable (you did disable 
RTL inlining, right?).
--Dan