From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8647 invoked by alias); 6 Dec 2004 12:33:36 -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 8457 invoked by alias); 6 Dec 2004 12:33:25 -0000 Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 12:33:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20041206123325.8456.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/msg00832.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de 2004-12-06 12:33 ------- 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. I tried tree-profiling branch and profile-based inlining is actually worse than "normal" inlining with inline-unit-growth=150. Worse by a factor of four. So, no cigar yet. And btw. profile based inlining seems to be ignorant of inline-unit-growth (at least it doesnt improve for greater values). And generating the profile is _very_ slow (for the tramp3d testcase). Runtime increases about 100 fold - not very good for creating a meaningful profile. Richard. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18704