From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id D5BCB3870863; Tue, 25 Jun 2024 16:20:44 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org D5BCB3870863 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1719332444; bh=DglHdZrJUHflbk4THGDczj4wPf6NlFkSePj7Rp/Ig0c=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=SOOLx6e11fw+a/+sN+rMZDJYhldxSVCqUTl5VzssTeh+GJqJciZ8uRCDOkBl1JhHJ iLxST88EPs2RhljN9G0jW5tUZIKe9P60LlXoUWm8/3uLxn0ZICxldPP2c+tojLQffc DllAiTMtD2W57Q5u8/7MqzStiB5VfgjNv0yKDqBw= From: "hubicka at ucw dot cz" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug ipa/114531] Feature proposal for an `-finline-functions-aggressive` compiler option Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 16:20:43 +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: hubicka at ucw dot cz 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 #12 from Jan Hubicka --- If this is without LTO, can you also try the LTO numbers? Inliner behaves sifniciantly different with and without LTO, since LTO introduces many (and often too many) inlining oppurtunities, which sometimes makes things to out of hand. Overal SPEC2k17 without LTO is not the most representative inlining benchmark, since most programs there are relatively old and written with small abstraction penalty.=