From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 387 invoked by alias); 28 Mar 2010 16:43:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 32755 invoked by alias); 28 Mar 2010 16:43:21 -0000 Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 16:43:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100328164321.32754.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: "rguenther at suse dot de" 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/msg02885.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de 2010-03-28 16:43 ------- Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] 0.5% code size regression caused by r147852 On Sun, 28 Mar 2010, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote: > ------- 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? Somewhere - you have to as Micha. > > 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? In theory not. In practice it removes the iteration if I remember correctly. Richard. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40436