From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <hubicka@kam.mff.cuni.cz>
Received: from nikam.ms.mff.cuni.cz (nikam.ms.mff.cuni.cz [195.113.20.16])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47C343858402
 for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Thu,  9 Dec 2021 15:58:53 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 47C343858402
Received: by nikam.ms.mff.cuni.cz (Postfix, from userid 16202)
 id 72BFD28287B; Thu,  9 Dec 2021 16:58:51 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2021 16:58:51 +0100
From: Jan Hubicka <hubicka@kam.mff.cuni.cz>
To: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com>
Cc: Jan Hubicka via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Limit inlining functions called once
Message-ID: <20211209155851.GM18150@kam.mff.cuni.cz>
References: <20211207150701.GK18150@kam.mff.cuni.cz>
 <20211208101058.6346d8a9@nbbrfq>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20211208101058.6346d8a9@nbbrfq>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED,
 DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_NONE,
 SPF_NONE, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on
 server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-patches>,
 <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-patches>,
 <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2021 15:58:55 -0000

> > I plan to reduce the value during before christmas after bit more testing since
> > it seems to be overall win even if we trade fatigue2 performance, but I would
> > like to get more testing on larger C++ APPs first.
> 
> Will this hurt -Os -finline-limit=0 ?

Why do you use -finline-limit=0 with -Os?
The patch does affect inlining even with -Os.  On my benchmarks inlining
very large functions is hit or miss code size wise (in pure theory
inlining those should be always a win but it is not - even ignoring
build times we stress regalloc and more likely hit various --param
thresholds)

I guess we could experiment with code size impact and possibly make -Os
defaults to differ from -O defaults like we do for some other params.

Honza
> thanks,