[Bug optimization/10679] [3.3/3.4] --param min-inline-insns not honoured

[Bug optimization/10679] [3.3/3.4] --param min-inline-insns not honoured

[pinskia@physics.uc.edu]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10679


pinskia@physics.uc.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Attachment #3956|application/octet-stream    |text/plain
          mime type|                            |
Attachment #3956 is|0                           |1
              patch|                            |





------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug optimization/10679] [3.3/3.4] --param min-inline-insns not honoured

[dhazeghi@yahoo.com]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10679


dhazeghi@yahoo.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|                            |1
  GCC build triplet|                            |i686-pc-linux-gnu
   GCC host triplet|                            |i686-pc-linux-gnu
 GCC target triplet|                            |i686-linux-pc-gnu
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2003-06-04 19:29:56
               date|                            |


------- Additional Comments From dhazeghi@yahoo.com  2003-06-04 19:29 -------
Confirmed. Richard, I didn't follow the thread on gcc-patches completely. Is this now superseded 
by __attribute__ leafify? Thanks.

Dara



------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug optimization/10679] [3.3/3.4] --param min-inline-insns not honoured

[rguenth@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10679



------- Additional Comments From rguenth@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de  2003-06-04 20:44 -------
Subject: Re:  [3.3/3.4] --param min-inline-insns not
 honoured

On 4 Jun 2003, dhazeghi@yahoo.com wrote:

> PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10679
>
>
> dhazeghi@yahoo.com changed:
>
>            What    |Removed                     |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>              Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
>      Ever Confirmed|                            |1
>   GCC build triplet|                            |i686-pc-linux-gnu
>    GCC host triplet|                            |i686-pc-linux-gnu
>  GCC target triplet|                            |i686-linux-pc-gnu
>    Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2003-06-04 19:29:56
>                date|                            |
>
>
> ------- Additional Comments From dhazeghi@yahoo.com  2003-06-04 19:29 -------
> Confirmed. Richard, I didn't follow the thread on gcc-patches completely. Is this now superseded
> by __attribute__ leafify? Thanks.

No. __attribute__((leafify)) is additional and also not accepted, nor
commented on in concept. (Though the actual patch I submitted
accidentially removes the offending check of this PR).

Richard.





------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug optimization/10679] [3.3/3.4] --param min-inline-insns not honoured

[dhazeghi@yahoo.com]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10679



------- Additional Comments From dhazeghi@yahoo.com  2003-06-04 21:44 -------
Darn! I should have read the thread more carefully, sorry for the noise... Do you think it would be 
worthwhile to submit a generic PR stating that the inliner is broken, period, and set it to P1, 
blocker for 3.4? It seems rather ridiculous to be planning yet another release without this IMHO 
extremely serious problem being solved. I really don't think waiting for tree-ssa is a valid option...



------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug optimization/10679] [3.3/3.4] --param min-inline-insns not honoured

[rguenth@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10679



------- Additional Comments From rguenth@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de  2003-06-04 21:54 -------
Subject: Re:  [3.3/3.4] --param min-inline-insns not
 honoured

On 4 Jun 2003, dhazeghi@yahoo.com wrote:

> PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10679
>
>
>
> ------- Additional Comments From dhazeghi@yahoo.com  2003-06-04 21:44 -------
> Darn! I should have read the thread more carefully, sorry for the noise... Do you think it would be
> worthwhile to submit a generic PR stating that the inliner is broken, period, and set it to P1,
> blocker for 3.4? It seems rather ridiculous to be planning yet another release without this IMHO
> extremely serious problem being solved. I really don't think waiting for tree-ssa is a valid option...

Yes, but everyone seems to set their bets on tree-ssa to make inlining
"trivially" work. But with this PR fixed, and __attribute__((leafify)) I'm
currently happy (apart from far from ideal CSE/GCSE/loop on the resulting
large functions).

Richard.





------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug optimization/10679] [3.3/3.4] --param min-inline-insns not honoured

[pinskia@physics.uc.edu]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10679


pinskia@physics.uc.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|3.4                         |3.3.1

[Bug optimization/10679] [3.3/3.4] --param min-inline-insns not honoured

[pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10679



------- Additional Comments From pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu  2003-07-15 18:58 -------
 think this is fixed in 3.4 (20030715) with the new inlining counting mechanism so that 
since bar is empty, gcc will inline it always. I just tried one with 30000 function calls to bar 
and it always inlined bar into foo at -O2.  It took over 90 seconds though it is a little too 
much time spent on it though.

[Bug optimization/10679] [3.3/3.4] --param min-inline-insns not honoured

[rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10679



------- Additional Comments From rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de  2003-07-16 07:25 -------
Subject: Re:  [3.3/3.4] --param min-inline-insns not
 honoured

On 15 Jul 2003, pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu wrote:

>  think this is fixed in 3.4 (20030715) with the new inlining counting mechanism so that
> since bar is empty, gcc will inline it always. I just tried one with 30000 function calls to bar
> and it always inlined bar into foo at -O2.  It took over 90 seconds though it is a little too
> much time spent on it though.

Are you sure this is true in all circumstances? In gcc/tree-inline.c I
still see the offending check at line 1020. So if not inlinable_function_p
is called with nolimit set always, we'll still hit this bug (I suppose
this happens at least with -fno-unit-at-a-time). If it is, this function
could be cleaned up a lot.

Richard.

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

[Bug optimization/10679] [3.3/3.4] --param min-inline-insns not honoured

[pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10679



------- Additional Comments From pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu  2003-07-18 14:35 -------
The check is still there but if the function that gcc is inlining is empty (which only happens with the 
new inlining counting mechanism), gcc will now always inline that function so that part is fixed, if 
on the other hand the function is not empty, you can and will hit that limit which you pointed out.

[Bug optimization/10679] [3.3/3.4] --param min-inline-insns not honoured

[rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10679



------- Additional Comments From rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de  2003-07-19 15:02 -------
Subject: Re:  [3.3/3.4] --param min-inline-insns not
 honoured

On 18 Jul 2003, pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu wrote:

> The check is still there but if the function that gcc is inlining is empty (which only happens with the
> new inlining counting mechanism), gcc will now always inline that function so that part is fixed, if
> on the other hand the function is not empty, you can and will hit that limit which you pointed out.

Yes, constructing a testcase for this bug is not easy, but placing a
warning inside the check causes >10000 hits on a medium size POOMA based
application. So this bug really triggers and hurts both runtime and
codesize.

Richard.

[Bug optimization/10679] [3.3/3.4] --param min-inline-insns not honoured

[pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10679



------- Additional Comments From pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu  2003-07-21 02:05 -------
Since it sounds like you have a testcase, a POOMA based one, can you attach it here?

[Bug optimization/10679] [3.3/3.4] --param min-inline-insns not honoured

[rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10679



------- Additional Comments From rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de  2003-07-21 09:39 -------
Subject: Re:  [3.3/3.4] --param min-inline-insns not
 honoured

On 21 Jul 2003, pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu wrote:

> Since it sounds like you have a testcase, a POOMA based one, can you attach it here?

I tried to verify my POOMA testcase with todays mainline and were not able
to reproduce the problems I have seen (and still see with 3.3.1). So the
new counting seems to be a huge improvement, though I still think the
check in tree-inline.c should be removed. Consider a not empty function
like

void foo(int i)
{
   switch (i) {
   case 1:
     bar();
     break;
   default:;
   }
}

If you have lots of calls to foo(x) with x!=1 you're going to hit this
limit even though the optimizer should be able to optimize away the
inlined function.

At the very last, if the check is not removed, the documentation needs to
be updated to honour it.

Richard.

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

[Bug optimization/10679] [3.3/3.4] --param min-inline-insns not honoured

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10679



------- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org  2003-07-23 07:13 -------
Subject: Bug 10679

CVSROOT:	/cvs/gcc
Module name:	gcc
Branch: 	gcc-3_3-branch
Changes by:	mmitchel@gcc.gnu.org	2003-07-23 07:13:42

Modified files:
	gcc            : ChangeLog tree-inline.c 
	gcc/testsuite  : ChangeLog 
Added files:
	gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/opt: inline4.C 

Log message:
	PR optimization/10679
	* tree-inline.c (inlinable_function_p): Honor MIN_INLINE_INSNS.
	
	PR optimization/10679
	* g++.dg/opt/inline4.C: New test.

Patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gcc-3_3-branch&r1=1.16114.2.682&r2=1.16114.2.683
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/tree-inline.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gcc-3_3-branch&r1=1.38.2.10&r2=1.38.2.11
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gcc-3_3-branch&r1=1.2261.2.240&r2=1.2261.2.241
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/opt/inline4.C.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gcc-3_3-branch&r1=NONE&r2=1.1.2.1

[Bug optimization/10679] [3.3/3.4] --param min-inline-insns not honoured

[mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10679


mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|3.3.1                       |3.4


------- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org  2003-07-23 07:43 -------
Fixed in GCC 3.3.1 -- but not yet fixed on the mainline.

[Bug optimization/10679] [3.3/3.4] --param min-inline-insns not honoured

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10679



------- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org  2003-07-23 16:45 -------
Subject: Bug 10679

CVSROOT:	/cvs/gcc
Module name:	gcc
Changes by:	mmitchel@gcc.gnu.org	2003-07-23 16:45:15

Modified files:
	gcc            : ChangeLog tree-inline.c 
	gcc/testsuite  : ChangeLog 
Added files:
	gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/opt: inline4.C 

Log message:
	PR optimization/10679
	* tree-inline.c (inlinable_function_p): Honor MIN_INLINE_INSNS.
	
	PR optimization/10679
	* g++.dg/opt/inline4.C: New test.

Patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.601&r2=2.602
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/tree-inline.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.68&r2=1.69
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.2910&r2=1.2911
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/opt/inline4.C.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.1&r2=1.2

[Bug optimization/10679] [3.3/3.4] --param min-inline-insns not honoured

[mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10679


mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED


------- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org  2003-07-23 16:49 -------
Fixed in GCC 3.4.

[Bug optimization/10679] [3.3/3.4] --param min-inline-insns not honoured

[jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10679


jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|3.4                         |3.3.1