From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id E4930385DDD5; Tue, 25 Jun 2024 18:40:11 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E4930385DDD5 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1719340811; bh=FjN99f2/9m98MyrcheK8+TmyJiU59UkMFzr+ifO+WQs=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=d8Ct/oZ2zTW9GM6W5ETigeb28rMECon9MXTdGaKZbW3YYCOfbhByxwVHM07nVLDva DI9Gw11jAZIyxy92/vjSEAkmjod2kp6FTlKGkXExzbxkmrzXk/CSANw7mTTiI0gpDk BBXY1cPPLMI3gOsEMEbp6GKf7uDR8FQllQaSYeuA= From: "rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug ipa/114531] Feature proposal for an `-finline-functions-aggressive` compiler option Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 18:40:11 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: ipa X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement X-Bugzilla-Who: rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D114531 --- Comment #17 from Richard Sandiford --- I can see that it's useful to ask whether the current -O2 & -O3 inlining heuristics are making the right trade-off. But I think that's really a different issue from the one that is raised in the PR. (Unless we think th= at -O2 and -O3 should always have the same inlining heuristics henceforward, b= ut that seems unlikely.) At the moment, -O3 is essentially -O2 + some -f options + some --param opti= ons. Users who want to pick & chose some of the -f options can do so, and can a= dd them to stable build systems. Normally, obsolete -f options are turned into no-ops rather than removed. But users can't pick & choose the --params, and add them to stable build systems, because we reserve the right to remove --params without warning. So IMO, we should have an -f option that represents =E2=80=9Cthe inlining p= arameters enabled by -O3=E2=80=9D, whatever they happen to be for a given release. I= t's OK if the set is empty. For such a change, it doesn't really matter whether the current --params are the right ones. It just matters that the --params are the ones that we currently use. If the --params are changed later, the -f option and -O3 wi= ll automatically stay in sync.=