From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4022 invoked by alias); 28 Mar 2010 16:56:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 3910 invoked by alias); 28 Mar 2010 16:56:29 -0000 Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 16:56:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100328165629.3909.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/msg02886.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #19 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-03-28 16:56 ------- Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] 0.5% code size regression caused by r147852 > > > 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. I think I saw one but it was wrong. I would be interested to at least know what this patch is about :) > > > In theory not. In practice it removes the iteration if I remember > correctly. Yes, but that should not affect the metrics (hopefully) Anyway the 4.6 inliner will probably again behave quite differently - I want to get FRE early, possibly get partial inlining done and we will have IPA AA that all affects effectivity of inlining. Honza -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40436