From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id AD4553870868; Tue, 25 Jun 2024 13:03:31 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org AD4553870868 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1719320611; bh=Zq8LovUXxh6wXcCAv3F+LdVl5DSlIw21tiar81BYmLU=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=kZrsAwUKLxuo+H2r12XF+wIv7P1pvJgpNwlc5xPQHDwbhqgBBpzBmD3+xcZd0blHs iWrLVjP9NZc7Mlvu4ACUanWtBola5sfhtVgi73bMnu+0lyFOQZzt4IWicUL67PbInQ 5y/gYDE7uWQ4yGi/RYU8PoDRuWdKaprQEw/i2mUc= From: "wilco 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 13:03:29 +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: wilco 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: cc 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 Wilco changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |wilco at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #10 from Wilco --- A 1.1% overall performance gain looks good - is there a significant codesize hit from this? If so, are there slightly less aggressive settings that still get most of the performance gains but at a lower (acceptable) codesize cost= ? It seems there may be scope to improve the default settings of -O2.=