From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9094 invoked by alias); 13 Dec 2012 22:35:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 9038 invoked by uid 48); 13 Dec 2012 22:35:34 -0000 From: "markus at trippelsdorf dot de" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug gcov-profile/55674] [4.8 Regression] >20% size increase of lto/pgo binaries since r193747 Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 22:35:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: gcov-profile X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: markus at trippelsdorf dot de X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.8.0 X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 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: 2012-12/txt/msg01371.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55674 --- Comment #12 from Markus Trippelsdorf 2012-12-13 22:35:33 UTC --- (In reply to comment #11) > Do you happen to know what it was with lto/pgo before the change? Should be > roughly equivalent to hot-bb-count-ws-permille=970 from what I saw in your > profiles Yes, it was ~34MB before the change. > What size increase is acceptable? It's hard to say in case of Firefox, because the only thing that one can reliably measure is the JavaScript performance. And this varies only very slightly with different compiler options. So you have no way to measure up to which point more inlining is still beneficial.