From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-253175-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 27333 invoked by alias); 23 Nov 2009 17:06:52 -0000
Received: (qmail 27317 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Nov 2009 17:06:51 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz (HELO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz) (195.113.26.193)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:05:47 +0000
Received: by atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz (Postfix, from userid 4018) 	id 2AF2BF05A5; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:05:45 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:07:00 -0000
From: Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz>
To: Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com>
Cc: Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz>, 	Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com>, 	Toon Moene <toon@moene.org>, 	Rafael Espindola <espindola@google.com>, Jan Hubicka <jh@suse.cz>, 	gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Whole program optimization and functions-only-called-once.
Message-ID: <20091123170544.GA25603@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
References: <38a0d8450911170850l12509322kce74159cc7eaeefe@mail.gmail.com> <4B0448A1.5010209@moene.org> <20091118203512.GA19839@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <4B045E0C.2010902@moene.org> <4B07D4A3.8070908@moene.org> <4B08BB83.2080005@redhat.com> <84fc9c000911220947j122bd3baq32e66f46397850f7@mail.gmail.com> <4B0AB69C.2050107@redhat.com> <20091123163114.GE19839@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <4B0ABFEF.30403@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4B0ABFEF.30403@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-11/txt/msg01268.txt.bz2

> I'd guess 1-2% if it was in average SPEC2000 like program.  But I think 
> it is compensated by improvements from other optimizations working on 
> bigger functions.

Agreed, this sounds like quite resonable tradeoff. I just wondered if it
won't slow down everything by 20% or so because then we would get into
usual unexplainable issues with more inlining suddenly making everything
a lot slower.

Honza