This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH, committed] Function specific option changes (IA-64, hot/cold, scheduling)
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 4:55 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>> How about a switch to apply a specific set of optimization to all cold
>> functions, like -Os -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2? Of cause, it should
>> be off by default.
>
> Why not just better tune the compiler? Seriously what is happening is
> that are marking functions which are not really cold.
I would agree with this.
At Google we have seen some serious performance regressions because
the definition of cold function seems mildly broken in some way
(haven't analyzed yet) and marked *some of the hottest functions we
have* as cold.
- References:
- [PATCH, committed] Function specific option changes (IA-64, hot/cold, scheduling)
- Re: [PATCH, committed] Function specific option changes (IA-64, hot/cold, scheduling)
- Re: [PATCH, committed] Function specific option changes (IA-64, hot/cold, scheduling)
- Re: [PATCH, committed] Function specific option changes (IA-64, hot/cold, scheduling)
- Re: [PATCH, committed] Function specific option changes (IA-64, hot/cold, scheduling)
- Re: [PATCH, committed] Function specific option changes (IA-64, hot/cold, scheduling)
- Re: [PATCH, committed] Function specific option changes (IA-64, hot/cold, scheduling)
- Re: [PATCH, committed] Function specific option changes (IA-64, hot/cold, scheduling)