This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Reduce inline-insns-auto

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 12:02 PM, H.J. Lu <> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 3:12 AM, Jan Hubicka <> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> this patch reduces inline-insns-auto from 60 to 50. ?This does not cause
>> performance regressions on our testsuite (SPEC/C++ benchmarks) and
>> significandly reduces size of some C testcases from SPEC since C code
>> tends to have number of functions of this size, unlike C++ benchmarks
>> where majority of functions are smaller.
>> I would like to reduce the limits further, but there is problem with eon
>> benchmark where not inlining the initialization loops cause major
>> regression. ?I will look into if we can handle this via Martin's better
>> cost estimate patch. (in general the bottleneck of inlining seems to
>> have shifted from early inlining limits and call costs to this
>> parameter. It is obvious that we need more informed estimates of
>> function body size after inlining and I hope that handling few most
>> common cases such as parameter becoming known constant will suffice).
>> I bootstrapped/regtested x86_64-linux and will commit the patch tomorrow
>> if there are no objections.
>> Honza
>> ? ? ? ?* doc/invoke.texi (inline-insns-auto): Set to 50 (from 60).
>> ? ? ? ?* params.def (inline-sinsns-auto): Set to 50.
> This caused:

Your fix for PR 46228. which I couldn't find in the gcc-patches archive,


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]