[tree-ssa] Preliminary analysis on POOMA slow downs (was Re: [tree-ssa] Speed up constant propagation)

[Daniel Berlin]

On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Steven Bosscher wrote:

> Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
> >
> > On Tuesday, June 17, 2003, at 01:07  PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I'm a bit surprised that the inliner is taking such a big hit.
> >
> >
> >
> > Hrmmmmm.
> > Remember we downed INSNS_PER_STMT (tree-inline.c), which increases the
> > amount of inlining done.
> > That was done only considering the effects of GIMPLE on C (and even
> > then, it was a while ago).
> > It might need reevaluation in light of C++ gimplification, etc.
>
> AFAICT it was never done and INSNS_PER_STMT is 10 on both mainline and
> branch.
So yer right.
Whoops.
I never committed it.
:)

>
> It looks more like you suffer from the extra pointers from the tree
> iterators and from the extra tree copying because GIMPLE has more trees
> and unshares everything.
Don't start the sharing argument again.

>
> >
> > Try setting it to 5 and see what happens.
>
>
> Fewer insns per statement will only _increase_ the amount of inlining,
> so this may not be a good idea.

Well, in one of my trees, it's 3, so ...