From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2307 invoked by alias); 25 Feb 2005 16:58:58 -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 829 invoked by uid 48); 25 Feb 2005 16:56:29 -0000 Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 23:53:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050225165629.823.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20041006153323.17863.kunert@physik.tu-dresden.de> References: <20041006153323.17863.kunert@physik.tu-dresden.de> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/17863] [4.0 Regression] threefold performance loss, not inlining as much X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-02/txt/msg03172.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 16:56 ------- Yes, the regression is even worse on the closed-duplicate #18704. There you can also find some analysis of inline parameter tuning. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17863