public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "kunert at physik dot tu-dresden dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/17863] [4.0 Regression] threefold performance loss, not inlining as much
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 16:56:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050208101333.25485.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20041006153323.17863.kunert@physik.tu-dresden.de>
------- Additional Comments From kunert at physik dot tu-dresden dot de 2005-02-08 10:13 -------
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] threefold performance
loss, not inlining as much
Good idea.
However, this provides just another knob to tune the inlining and it is not obvious where to apply that attribute for the best performance. I played with the present dozen or so parameters for some hours to come close to the old (aka 3.4) performance, and I definitely can't handle even more.
Thank you
Thomas Kunert
bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> ------- Additional Comments From bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-03 16:49 -------
> To the reporter: in this case you probably want __attribute__ ((leafify)), just
> in case, though you are right in expecting the compiler to inline it.
>
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17863
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-02-08 10:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-10-06 15:33 [Bug tree-optimization/17863] New: threefold performance loss kunert at physik dot tu-dresden dot de
2004-10-06 15:34 ` [Bug tree-optimization/17863] " kunert at physik dot tu-dresden dot de
2004-10-06 17:02 ` [Bug tree-optimization/17863] [4.0 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-06 18:40 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-11-02 15:48 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-06 5:21 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-24 20:36 ` [Bug tree-optimization/17863] [4.0 Regression] threefold performance loss, not inlining as much pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-24 21:09 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
2005-01-28 1:04 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-08 16:56 ` kunert at physik dot tu-dresden dot de [this message]
2005-02-24 21:24 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-25 16:39 ` kunert at physik dot tu-dresden dot de
2005-02-25 16:43 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-25 23:03 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
2005-02-25 23:53 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-03-02 11:35 ` [Bug tree-optimization/17863] [4.0/4.1 " steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-03-02 11:36 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-03-05 18:49 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-03-05 19:03 ` rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de
2005-04-21 5:06 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-06-27 4:54 ` dank at kegel dot com
2005-06-27 6:38 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-06-30 22:16 ` danalis at cis dot udel dot edu
2005-06-30 22:24 ` danalis at cis dot udel dot edu
2005-07-01 3:44 ` dank at kegel dot com
2005-07-08 1:45 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-09-27 16:25 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20050208101333.25485.qmail@sourceware.org \
--to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).