GCC inline parameters (PR 10160 testcase)

[Mark Mitchell]

On Fri, 2003-05-02 at 14:14, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > I believe that we are about to ship 3.3 with a set of inline parameter
> > defaults that are way too agressive.  These can cause huge increases
> > in compilation time and memory over that with a more conservative
> > set of parameters.
> 
> I think it's even worse: the new heuristics of the tree inliner is simply
> broken, period. See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2003-04/msg00871.html for my
> own take on PR 10160.

Hmm; I didn't know we'd changed our inlining heuristics to have this
MIN_INLINE_INSNS concept.

You can, however, set that to zero using --params.

But, I think the scheduler is your real problem here; there shouldn't be
n^2 algorithms in there, unless they have clamps.

-- 
Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
CodeSourcery, LLC