From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 57117 invoked by alias); 24 Mar 2015 17:02:39 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 57053 invoked by uid 55); 24 Mar 2015 17:02:36 -0000 From: "hubicka at ucw dot cz" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug ipa/65478] [5 regression] crafty performance regression Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 17:23:00 -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: 5.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: hubicka at ucw dot cz X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 5.0 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2015-03/txt/msg02620.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65478 --- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka --- > > We also may consider adding bit of negative hints for cases where > > cloning would turn function called once (by noncold edge) to a > > function called twice. > > This would be much easier, although the penalty would have to be quite > big because the goodness number calculated by > good_cloning_opportunity_p is 830 and the threshold is 500. > > But given the above, perhaps, for gcc 5 at least, we might want to > introduce a 0.7 factor penalty for this and another 0.7 factor penalty > just for being within an SCC? Yep, that sounds like resonable thing to try to me. Honza