From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20572 invoked by alias); 6 Dec 2004 09:53:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 20532 invoked by alias); 6 Dec 2004 09:53:02 -0000 Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 09:53:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20041206095302.20531.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20041128181553.18704.rguenth@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de> References: <20041128181553.18704.rguenth@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/18704] [4.0 Regression] Inlining limits cause 340% performance regression X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-12/txt/msg00823.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de 2004-12-06 09:53 ------- Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] Inlining limits cause 340% performance regression On 6 Dec 2004, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > No reason to keep this one open, there is PR 17863 still. Also note I heard from Honza that the tree > profiling branch with feedback can optimizate better than with your leafy patch. Wow, that would be cool. Does the tree-profiling branch contain the cfg inliner? I'll try it asap. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18704