PR 10196 / Re: Inliner parameters

[Richard Guenther]

On 23 Apr 2003, Steven Bosscher wrote:

> Op wo 23-04-2003, om 13:36 schreef Richard Guenther:
> >
> > which is _a lot_ better, but still a 19% regression for -fno-exceptions
> > and a 22% regression for -fexceptions. But as these numbers are below
> > 30%, we can now downgrade the priority of the PR?
>
> Part of that 30% can probably be explained with PR 8361, but inlining
> still is slower, and there should be a PR for that, I think.
>
> So I propose we close PR 10316, and we either close 10196 and open a new
> PR for the inliner slowdown, or we leave 10196 open with a remark in the
> audit trail.  Does that sound OK to you?

I assumed the inliner slowdown was resolved by marks first patch (a month
ago), and now the EH problem was solved. I propose to close the PR, as the
audit trail is already quite huge. I'll check the EH/inliner problems
seperately again and open two PRs tracking them separately, if necessary.

Richard.

--
Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at uni-tuebingen dot de>
WWW: http://www.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de/~rguenth/