PR 10196 / Re: Inliner parameters

[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. :-)

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