From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25406 invoked by alias); 28 Mar 2010 16:34:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 25326 invoked by alias); 28 Mar 2010 16:33:44 -0000 Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 16:34:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100328163344.25325.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/40436] [4.5 regression] 0.5% code size regression caused by r147852 In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "hubicka at ucw dot cz" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-03/txt/msg02882.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #17 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-03-28 16:33 ------- Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] 0.5% code size regression caused by r147852 > Indeed. > > There is also some miscounting of overall unit size, Micha has a patch for > that (but it completely chokes tramp3d results). There is also the Where is the patch? > early inliner cleanups I have done at some point. Thus, I suppose we can > look at this early during 4.6 development again. Well, those should not affect the resulting inlining, right? Honza -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40436