PR 10196 / Re: Inliner parameters

[Steven Bosscher]

Op wo 23-04-2003, om 17:46 schreef Mark Mitchell:
> On Wed, 2003-04-23 at 05:06, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I think the submitter always has the right to close a PR they
> submitted.  It's all about customer satisfaction. :-)
> 
> I've closed PR 10196; if there are more you want to open, go ahead. :-)

Actually, there's one more you may want to close: Like I said, PR 10316
is about "Very long compile time when exceptions enabled".  I haven't
tried but it seemed like 10196 and 10316 were duplicates.

Greetz
Steven